Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 August	1 September >

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. Deor (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Npk Twice

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is KasiRap and I would like to appeal to whoever deleted the page Nominated the page Npk Twice to please removed the nomination because as a South African Magazine editor I feel certain articles about South Africa and it's Public figure are excluded from the encyclopedia that is Wikipedia. I also suggest others to help me in making this Article better and also help making it meet guidelines required for a Biographical article to be considered legit. I will continue providing legitimate and reliable information about South Africa and individuals important in and around south africa. I hope I was understood well in my argument and the page Npk Twice will not be deleted as Mr Khoza is a very important and popular individual amongst south africans.

References I obtained this information are his wapsite. http://www.thisistwice.tk

His label http://www.twiceproductions.com And also his social media accounts which I will not provide due to Guidelines here on wikipedia but I suggest you google NPK Twice and after doing so you will see for yourself that mr Khoza is a popular individual in South Africa. And I'm doing this in efforts to boost the number of articles of south african public figures and celebs

On the about section and I even Googled wapsite Articles around Mr Khoza or should I say Npk Twice as that is his stage name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasirap (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 04:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 (Talk) 19:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just nothing there that qualifies as a WP:RS. Everything is social media or blogs. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State Highway Spur 325

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

Same case here. See Articles for deletion/Texas State Highway Loop 473 for complete argument. Mr RD 19:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to the nomination, WP:HIGHWAYS states "Secondary state highways... that are part of a statewide system... are generably notable." As these routes are numbered and maintained by TxDOT, they fall under the purview of this guideline. If articles on short Texas State Loops and Spurs should be merged into a list, then that is a discussion for a venue other than AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas State Highway Loop 473. Spurs are another type of secondary highway in Texas, in addition to the Loops. Imzadi 1979 → 01:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous !votes. These spurs are integral parts of highway systems and extremely important as "destination highways." --Oakshade (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Merge into a list would also be a viable option. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State Highway Loop 11

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

Same case here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas State Highway Loop 473 for complete argument. Mr RD 19:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to the nomination, WP:HIGHWAYS states "Secondary state highways... that are part of a statewide system... are generably notable." As these routes are numbered and maintained by TxDOT, they fall under the purview of this guideline. If articles on short Texas State Loops and Spurs should be merged into a list, then that is a discussion for a venue other than AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas State Highway Loop 473. Imzadi 1979 → 01:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Merge into a list would also be a viable option. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic numeral variations

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: poorly sourced random collections of trivia about Arabic numerals. Duplicates information on other pages.

Previously survived a PROD and a PROD2, hence AfD. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree about sourcing, but the information is basically correct and the article is improvable in this respect. However I disagree about INDISCRIMINATE: The collection is not random: the topic is well-defined and quite narrow. Duplication can be handled by normal editing. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Poorly referenced, and all the topics discussed are already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia. A better article on this topic would lean me towards "weak keep." -- 101.117.2.217 (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - currently this is very weak. A decent article might be written. Rick Steves mentioned this concept in an episode of his PBS documentary, Travel Skills. But a lot of work has to be done, so userfication may be the best option. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Arabic Numerals section of Regional handwriting variation#Arabic numerals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisashiyarouin (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is possibly scope for a separate article, but at present it would largely duplicate content from text figures and Regional handwriting variation. I don't see the need for such a fork at the moment. (My overall impression is already summarized nicely by 101.117.2.217.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hisashiyarouin's point that anything useful and anything useful at [[ Regional handwriting variation#Arabic numerals, could be consolidated into one whole, either there or here, to beneficial effect. In either case we might see the notability here as being less a question of whether a split was appropriate there. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Regional_handwriting_variation#Arabic_numerals. It's an interesting topic, and one worth covering, but it's not so wide an area that we need two separate articles. I do prefer the format of the prose here to the prose in the target article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 08:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Calls to merge to Regional handwriting variation do not cut it, because it is not only handwriting but also printed or computer typefaces variation (e.g. see books that discuss it in such context). More sourcing is perhaps not easy to come across if you are not a typography expert, but it is most probably present. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:18, 29 August 2014 (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) 19:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A useful page which does the job of summarising information present in other articles.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 20:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more about printed fonts than handwriting so the proposed redirect target makes no sense. And per Wikipedia:Summary style, it should be completely acceptable to have an article such as this one that summarizes briefly material that is detailed in several other articles such as text figures. The referencing could be improved but the linked articles have more and AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State Highway Loop 473

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

Nominating for deletion as I am unable to establish notability. Neither Notability (geographic features) nor Notability (highways) says anything about loops. I believe it is non notable but a consensus should be established. Mr RD 19:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to the nomination, WP:HIGHWAYS states "Secondary state highways... that are part of a statewide system... are generably notable." As these routes are numbered and maintained by TxDOT, they fall under the purview of this guideline. If articles on short Texas State Loops and Spurs should be merged into a list, then that is a discussion for a venue other than AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—as Kinu points out, this is a secondary highway. In fact, Texas has several systems that would qualify, and the Loops are just one of them. Imzadi 1979 → 01:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous !votes. Loops are integral parts of highway systems and frequently have more traffic than the routes they are bypassing.--Oakshade (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Merge into a list would also be a viable option. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as loops in Texas, along with spurs which TxDOT regards as their equal brethren, belong to many different functional classes, serve very different purposes, and often access historic or scenic destinations.
- All three loops under current discussions in Afd are important urban roadways in the Wichita Falls area that have heavy traffic. Many have histories that add to improving the articles about the routes they previously conveyed. This is typical of many urban "secondaries", many of which are either freeways, partly freeways, carry through freight trucking by legal requirement, or even represent inner loops predating Interstate loops in an era before suburban sprawl such as Loop 12 in Dallas.
- Not all former portions of US 66 are I-40 business loops. Many still have state loop designations. These routes are part of the WP:USRD goal this year of improving all articles dealing with this historic highway.
- Even in rural areas, many routes are of significance to tourists and history buffs. Spur 95 takes you to Gonzales Battlefield where the Texas Revolution began in 1835. Spur 78, built in the 1930s in the Davis Mountains, was instrumental in building McDonald Observatory, has the highest elevation of any road in the state, and remains a major draw to tourists visiting the national and state parks in the Trans-Pecos region.
- There already are list articles for loops, spurs, and even former loops. However, the tabular format of these lists cannot provide any encyclopedic information about these roads to travelers, merely interested readers, and certainly not to anyone trying to improve articles related to these roads. Fortguy (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational 2012

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

Year version of the already deleted Miss Supranational. Looks like promo, as it is referenced only my related sources. Google searche mainly lists social media or related websites as hits. The Banner talk 19:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this applies to all articles in Category:Miss Supranational. Many of those articles are written or started by SPAs or clearly related people (like Mrdhimas). The Banner talk 19:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and associated tests. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - various reasons, but most compellingly, the pageant itself is not notable. Mabalu (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find unreliable (facebook, twitter) sources. No significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Fails WP:N. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination. Did not meet the general notability guideline--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Subject is clearly not there yet. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Adams

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

Fails to meet notability / sourcing criteria- substantially. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Choral Arts Ensemble of Portland

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) @ 20:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I was able to find a fair bit of social media chatter and blog entries about them, but nothing that I'd consider a WP:RS. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice local chorus, with local announcements of events, but no reliable third party sources that would speak to its notability. LaMona (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Left Behind characters. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Rose

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

A minor book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect As per 2013 suggestion, redirect to List_of_Left_Behind_characters, where Leah Rose already exists. This has been a stub since 2005. LaMona (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge/weak keep/redirect-Been a while since I've read it, but I do think that one of those 3 would be the best.

Wgolf (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Since she is mentioned in the List_of_Left_Behind_characters I think the common sense move would be to merge over there. Otherwise this article needs to be deleted for lack of notability on its own.--Canyouhearmenow 11:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Left Behind characters. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Tiberias

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

A minor book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or merge into article with other minor characters. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge/redirect Redirect to List_of_Left_Behind_characters. This has been a stub since 2007. LaMona (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge/weak keep/redirect I am going for merge/redirect for now. Wgolf (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Left Behind characters. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Barnes (Left Behind)

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

A minor book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or merge into article with other minor characters. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I wouldn't say the character is minor, also either just keep it or merge/redirect. Wgolf (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am willing to accept a merge as a compromise unless you can find third person sources to justify it being a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Left Behind characters. I'd support a merge with the main page, but there's no need for this (or any of the characters, really) to have an article separate from the main article. None of them have really received any coverage that would show notability outside of the series. I'll also give fair warning: since there are multiple AfDs for Left Behind characters, I'll likely be cut and pasting this into each AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested, and per the usual procedure when the notability of a fictional character is not clear. Bearian (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shreveport Journal. If anybody wants to merge some of the verifiable information to Shreveport Journal, all content is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Shannon

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

Journalist with no claims to fame that meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Sources are either obits or trivial coverage. One of many articles created about non-notable people from Louisiana by the same editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 05:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Ascii002Talk Contribs 05:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:AUTHOR. The subject of the article is not an 'important figure' nor have they been responsible for any other notable activity. The subject seems to be a minor figure in 1960's political journalism, having little lasting impact. Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is very little information about editors or political leanings in the Shreveport Journal article. Some information from here could enhance that article. LaMona (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but a merger would be OK with me, too. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 19:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Creech

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

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This character had its own series' and toys made after it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 19:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curse (comics)

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

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP seems to be a pattern with deleting certain articles not unlike the pattern of adding bare link urls to an article and hitting them with a link rot tag a few seconds later. This is a notable comic character and a New Jersey Newspaper devoted an article to it in addition to all the internet cruft.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that this AfD has been open for almost 3 weeks now, I don't expect any more participants to pop up. Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akatsukizukuyo (Day Breakers)

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

Fails to qualify WP:NSONG. No sign of significance as fas as I could see. Nominated for speedy deletion but was removed. Mr RD 07:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Too soon. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Three weeks seems enough for any dissident opinions to be heard. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Badeji Khan

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

Does not appear to be notable independent of his family. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The notability is unclear where it also lacks significant coverage in the reliable references. CutestPenguin (Talk) 15:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus to keep Arguments for deletion were either refuted or not based in policy. Chillum 02:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manji Khan

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

Does not seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 09:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books offer a lot of sources needed to develop this article in accordance with Wikipedia requirements. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and HEY. CutestPenguin (Talk) 15:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain what exactly is so wrong with the content of the article instead of pointing to an acronym? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vejvančický, unless you tag User:Cutest Penguin, he/she is unlikely to respond. WP:HEY is often linked at AfD, and from a click it shows that the article would need so much verification/improvement that they can't se that they would be convinced to vote keep. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: I forgot to notify Cutest Penguin, thanks for doing that. Yes, I know what WP:HEY means. To me, it is a comfortable way of argumenting, unfortunately lacking constructive thinking, imagination, and real work. It is similar to repetitive AfD nomination statements. I'll try to add more references to the article and correct/verify some statements in it. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources satisfy WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO 1 and, probably, 7. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Added sources seem to be satisfactory. I wish people here could properly explain their rationale for deleting or keeping without constantly referring to Wikipedia policy acronyms all the time. That is one of the biggest turn-offs on Wikipedia. Enough of the bloody acronyms.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 20:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stormy Strong

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

WP:BLP of a musician which relies on a podcast and Facebook for sourcing, with zero evidence provided of actual coverage in actual reliable sources. Winning the Billboard World Songwriting Contest might, maybe, be enough notability to get him past WP:NMUSIC (I'm not familiar enough with it to know whether it's a particularly notable award or not), but even NMUSIC requires the notability claim to be sourced and not merely asserted. There are also conflict of interest issues here, as the article has been edited by someone whose Wikipedia username, User:Barbrocks, matches the name of the subject's manager — and while I can't prove anything outright, the original creator's username, User:Sturmer25, has enough of a relationship to the subject's own name to also ping my COIdar. Delete if the sourcing can't be properly beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 10:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would show that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow talk 16:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bay City Rollers. Not really sufficient sourcing for a BLP. Any content worth merging is still available in the article history. No prejudice to resurrecting the article if additional sources become available. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon "Nobby" Clark

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

Just another band member. Nothing here indicates individual notability. Only source is a tabloid. Egghead06 (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the three founders of Bay City Rollers. Weren't they big at one time? JASpencer (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NOTABLE as a member of Bay City Rollers. Harrison2014 (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UTC)
Comment. I'm not seeing the 'significant coverage' required here as listed in WP:NOTABLE?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to BCR article. Member of the Rollers before they made it & no apparent significant activity since leaving band: certainly no significant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanasis Pouliadis

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

Doesn't appear to be WP:NOTABLE. There is no Greek-lang article to get info from, and has been tagged for notability for six and a half years, unresolved. May be worth a redirect to company. Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. if after that long its notability is not confirmed, it is time for it to go. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a Greek version of the article el:Θανάσης Πουλιάδης but it was deleted in 2012 as a copyright violation. There was some Greek news coverage of his death [1], but not a lot I am finding in a quick search.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrene

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

fails WPMUSIC, no outside sources, self-promotional puffpiece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CesareAngelotti (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah C. Peel

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

There are some indications of notability, but overall I didn't feel it was fully proved by reliable sources. After being tagged for over six and a half years for notability, it needs to be resolved either way. Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person runs a small non-profit organization (~$250K/yr). Before the person could be considered notable, I would think that the organization would be notable. Although Peel is interviewed at times on news shows, there are no 3rd-party resources that I can find. LaMona (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPERSON. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Loibner

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

I could not establish his notability. Has German-language article, but no evidence of notability there either. Has been tagged for notability for six and a half years - time for a discussion. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability; no significant references. Nothing else appears with a general search.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. LaMona (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Socialists (Scotland)

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

Not a notable organisation. No reliable third-party sources. Zcbeaton (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk)

Comment Worth noting that until recently, and for four years beforehand, this article was a redirect to Socialist Party Scotland as they previously used the name. Keresaspa (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aashish Mehrotra Biography

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO CutestPenguin (Talk) 16:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin (Talk) 16:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable Gbawden (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, although some of local popularity. In any case, article has numerous problems, from its title to the references, so it would need extensive cleanup if sources could be found. I couldn't find any. LaMona (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Finnimore Buckley

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. Could find no significant coverage. Being married to someone notable doesn't confer automatic notability LibStar (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no difficulty finding coverage of this notable classicist and translator. For example, the Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser provided biographical details in 1908, including the fact that she was the niece of Arabella Buckley. Andrew (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but does the coverage meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am trying very hard to save this article, and have added some information and links. This is, however, a place where the WP requirements meet some unfortunate cultural bias. As a woman working in the 19th century in a "man's" job (translation) she disguised her sex by using only her initials, and most likely eschewed publicity in order to maintain this identity. Some of the works that she translated are clearly important because I can find them cited (with E. F. Buckley as translator) in Google and Google scholar searches. The one book she wrote under her full name (a book of Greek classic tales aimed at young readers) was well-received by some and has been reprinted in whole and in part, although one critic at the time said "The truth is that this is not woman's work, and a woman has neither the knowledge nor literary tack necessary for it." (ref in article). It's hard to achieve notability when you have to keep your head down. LaMona (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject of this article is "worthy of notice" as I interpret WP:BIO. —Diiscool (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A quick search of JSTOR turns up numerous citations from various authors in a variety of scholarly journals for her French translations. That should be sufficient to establish notability under the first criterion of WP:AUTHOR, even before getting to other coverage mentioned above. JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 04:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metropol Sport

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

This is an article about a newspaper which seems to fail all 4 points of Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) and fails Wikipedia:General notability guideline. I tried several searches, including Metropol Sport, Metropol Sport (books), Metropol Sport newspaper, Metropol Sport newspaper (books), Metropol Sport newspaper Albania, Metropol Sport newspaper Albania (books), Metropol Sport (gazetë), and Metropol Sport (gazetë) (books), not to mention Metropol Sport (news), but all I found was Wikipedia mirrors, a fashion/sports company in Germany, and a newspaper in New Zealand. —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Smit (musician)

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

Some suggestion of meeting WP:MUSICBIO, but not enough. No Dutch-lang article. The only article in another language, Finnish, is a one-liner. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, without resolution. Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Totally agree. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reflex Point

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

Following on successful AfD of List of Robotech vehicles I present Reflex Point, an article about a fictional location written entirely from an in universe perspective. It contains no references outside of the fictional media in which it exists. Daniel (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This should be moved to wikia it is total fancruft without any indication of notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not passing WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable sources. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Obradovicova

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

There is evidence she is a model, but not that she meets WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. No Slovakian language article to get information from. Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I think it's close but the article doesn't meet the notability requirements. It's arguable that the Pluska and CAS references are both independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic which means it scrapes through GNG on its own but with regard to WP:NMODEL she only really has her role in "Tonight" which can be covered in that article. Hence I would agree with the deletion. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 04:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undeclinable

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG, and its articles in two other languages offer no more reliable sources. Has been tagged for notability for si and a half years, so really needs resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Stepp

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

Not clear that she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Was created by WP:SPA over six years ago, and has had a notability tag on it most of this time. It needs to be resolved, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She played one minor role that got her a little notice. She does not seem to meet notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage and significant roles suggests the subject does not appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 20:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 04:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steltor

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over six years; time for it to be resolved. Might be wroth a redirect/merge, possibly to Oracle Collaboration Suite. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is to keep per GNG, rather than solely due to her position. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marian T. Ryan

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

Fails WP:BIO. Simply can't see that this DA is notable. Started as a DA about 16 months ago. Are DA's notable? scope_creep 20:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (creator) DAs aren't presumed notable, but a minor politician with plenty of press coverage (Massachusetts is awfully self-absorbed about its politics) seems within Wikipedia's scope. —Designate (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hirolovesswords. Numerous independent reliable non-trivial sources suggests she meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ainslie

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

Fails WP:BIO. A hedge fund manager who was profiled in a book. Also profiles in financial pages, but unknown outside the financial community. Simply non notable. scope_creep 21:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep @Scope creep: The nominator's rationale is not in line with WP:GNG. Unknown outside the financial community is not a valid reason for deletion, since wikipedia features of general and specialized encyclopedias. Otherwise Vitamin B12 total synthesis would be non-notable for it's unknown outside the chemists' community. Lots of sources can be found through a google book search.([10])--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - bit like saying Mark Webber is only notable within the motor-sport community or Jim Parsons' notability is limited to television audiences. Significant coverage is significant coverage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are close to six million people in the United States who work in finance and insurance. About 1 million people in the UK work in finance and audit. Why would you consider a well-known finance person obscure, but not a NASCAR driver like Jimmie Johnson (not well known outside of racing) or a biologist like E.O. Wilson (whom I greatly admire--but he is not well known out of naturalist circles)? • Johnnysakko — Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Kabiller

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

Fails WP:BIO. A hedge fund manager who is notable in what way?. Also profiles in financial pages, but unknown outside the financial community. Simply non notable. scope_creep 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's rationale is not in line with WP:GNG. Unknown outside the financial community is not a valid reason for deletion, since wikipedia features of general and specialized encyclopedias. Otherwise Vitamin B12 total synthesis would be non-notable for it's unknown outside the chemists' community.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the area of expertise doesn't particularly matter; it appears there are just enough sources to meet WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Didn't realise redirect caused technical problems, no reason to keep this a week since no one want to actually keep Jac16888 ^Talk 19:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfuric acid (data page)

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

Unnecessary supplementary data page. Unfortunately, due to technical reasons, it cannot be simply redirected. A prod was attempted, but for some reason, that was reverted, so taking it here. See prod, support for prod, and de-prod Frietjes (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gagarin: First in Space

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

Articles does not meet WP:NOTFILM for notability and does not have significant coverage in independent sources. The film has not been reviewed by anyone notable or been nominated or won an award and the film release has not had significant coverage. Cowlibob (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - as per the great work done below in finding sources which prove notability. Cowlibob (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STRONG Keep per meeting WP:NF... even if most of the many available sources are non-English. IE: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26],[27]... and many others. Their not being in English does not somehow equate to a non-notability. I encourage the nominator to consider WP:CSB, and WP:NONENG and mostly WP:NRVE to understand and accept that notability is found through an availability of sources and not upon their being used to cite an article... and I ask that he withdraw this very unnecessary AFD. Secondly Cowlibob, and with respects, if we have a meeting of WP:GNG (even if in non-English sources), we need not dip into WP:OEN. Note the entry at the Russian Wikipedia shows sources which could be translated. IE link to the Russian version of megacritic.com giving results for multiple critic reviews. WP:NF is easily met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2014–15 NHL Three Star Awards

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

There's no content here, just a template. Even if content was added it would violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. yet another one of Dolovis' premature creations so he can get the first edit. That said, I would add there should be no prejudice against recreation when there is actual content to fill. Wikipedia has numerous lists of award winners, and this is no different. Reso lute 02:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all the other season lists (back to 2010-2011). Weekly and monthly awards aren't all that significant. We're not talking the Hart or Vezina Trophies. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soud Al-Jinaye

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.--Sabri76'^talk 10:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Experience

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

Advert for non notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Advert? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The promotion looks like a very small, local promotion and the article hasn't third-party sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails CORP.LM2000 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy on Wrestling

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

Advert for non notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two news articles, citations 2 and 4, are sourced to the promotion's article. I also found articles from the Pro Wrestling Torch [28] and WDIO [29]. 72.74.200.86 (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 doesn't work. Source 2, OWOW profile about a wrestler. Source 3, works fine. Source 4, doesn't work.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources that I have found seem too WP:ROUTINE to cover GNG concerns.LM2000 (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Wrestling Federation/Fans

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

Advert for non notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:28, 3 September 2014 (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 04:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability concerns haven't improved since it was tagged in 2012.LM2000 (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Pro Wrestling

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

~~Advert for~~ non notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The copy-and-paste mass nomination doesn't work here, since this article is not advertising. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, maybe I mess up with the Advertising. However, I think the promotion stills no notable, like New York Wrestling Connection. The only source (xcept the own website) is cagematch with results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:21, 3 September 2014 (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 04:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails CORP.LM2000 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top Quality Wrestling

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

~~Advert for~~ Non notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How is this advertising? Cutting and pasting a deletion rationale that doesn't apply to the article is disruptive and irresponsible. This is no more an advertisement than the WWE article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Burrows

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

Fictional character, article taken from the game's wiki. No WP:RS to show notability, most are redlinked or cite the game's manual. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article, if notable, needs to be blown up and written from scratch. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable character, however, it is a possible search term and redirects are cheap, I would then create & semi-prot a redirect to Dishonored (video game). The content we shouldn't keep since it was a copy+paste from a wikia. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable character. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED by User:RHaworth. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Tabular PDF Documents extractor

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

Article is nothing more than a list/collection of WP:External links ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Falls under WP:NOT. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A10 of List of PDF software and tagged as such. See also Free pdf converter which was speedied as A10. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete software list article of unclear notability, consisting of entirely non-notable entries. Also Linkfarm / spam issues.Dialectric (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No !keep votes for a topic that fails to meet the General notability guideline hence the consensus is to delete. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012 SAASL Saturday Division 4 League

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

Fails to meet notoriety guidelines. J man708 (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as this too, fails to meet any form of notoriety guidelines and seems to have been created by people directly involved with the league. This is a local amateur sporting league's fourth division. It's hardly worthy of being an article on Wiki:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable very low level local amateur league, no indication that this league has garnered any significant coverage whatsoever. Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by the nominator. Wikicology (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Mason (potter)

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

No evidence of any special notability - there must be many hundreds of potters about whom a similar biography could be written. The several refs back up the text but don't demonstrate any notability. Nicely written but still fails WP:BIO. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does establish notability. There would certainly not be hundreds of potters who are appointed a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to pottery. The appointment was made for her special contributions to this industry when it was in its infancy. Schwede 66 18:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a recent death, please let the AfD run a little longer than usual while obits appear in various places. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per New Zealand Order of Merit and refs currently in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion withdrawn - am happy to withdraw the nomination based on additional refs now provided and confirmed membership of New Zealand Order of Merit (although this does not, and should not, imply automatic notability). Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just to register my support for retaining the article NealeFamily (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

James Huon George

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

Non-notable. Has claims of notability, but Google search returns zero results. Possible WP:G3 also. Stickee (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely fail WP:GNG, possibly WP:CSD#A7. -- nafSadh did say 05:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently fails WP:BLP as well by having no references. ProtossPylon 05:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above, especially with the word 'currently'. I am sure little Jimmy will return here (I mean have an article) in the future when he is an adult and a great composer. We will allways reserve a place for your article Mister George. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per everyone above - Most certainly Fails GNG as well as BLP. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - WP:A7 - The claim of significance or importance given is not credible. -- Taketa (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously delete for failing WP:GNG. Maybe even Speedy Delete A7. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A {{trout}} for the nominator, for both not proposing a policy-based reason for deletion, but rather a maintiance one, and for explicitly stating that alternatives to deletion were not explored. AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel tax

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

Sill no references after 5 years Wayne Jayes (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you conducted a WP:BEFORE search on this topic? I found an in-depth reference on the first page of the gnews results for this topic [30]. 109.77.247.13 (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the Afd had the desired effect, thank you. Wayne Jayes (talk) 10:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator tells us plainly that he has not followed the due process of WP:BEFORE and there is no shortage of references in the search links above. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE is not optional. Process seriously flawed on this nomination, and this article may be fixable. There are WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems the nom didn't bother searching for anything prior to nomination, Plenty of sources - [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable municipal topic. And Waynejaynes, WP:BEFORE is there to put the burden on the nominator to make sure they have a good nomination being brought up; AfD is not cleanup. Nate • (chatter) 21:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator could easily have found a ref if they had tried! Warren (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes but at the same time it is good to challenge articles which lack references, since it brings more eyes and minds to an issue, and invariably results in an improved encyclopedia; so I am thinking whether a nominator must necessarily jump through numerous hurdles before proposing deletion; if an article has not had any references for five years, AfD it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per criterion G11. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 14:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Player energy drink

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

Non-notable energy drink. Cannot find any coverage in secondary sources, thus fails WP:GNG. Stickee (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Db-promo. -- nafSadh did say 05:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seems promo. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article has been Speedy Deleted G11 and this AfD can be closed as Speedy Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into Henderson's Boys. Ollieinc (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Escape (Muchamore novel)

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

I'm nominating the individual books for the Henderson's Boys series, as I can't see where the individual books are particularly notable enough to really warrant individual, separate pages outside of the main series article. I was going to just redirect all of them to the main series article, but this has been contested by User:Ollieinc, who wants to have a consensus on this. I just can't find where each book has really received any true coverage to where they would pass WP:NBOOK separate outside of the main series. One or two of the books have received a review or two, but again, I can't see where they each warrant their own separate article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Support - after doing a few Google searches, I realise there is actually very little supporting the notability of the separate books. I'll WP:BEBOLD and userfy them to my userspace, and then merge the important info into Henderson's Boys. Ollieinc (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. FWIW, I do wish that we could do individual pages for notable series or for authors that have had multiple notable works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Singh

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

Article by an SPA about a boxer who doesn't meet WP:NBOX. The title he won is from a minor organization and the article shows no significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & PRehse, Fails NBOX .–Davey2010 • (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nominator advocates non-delete position and no oustanding delete !votes. Merge/rename should be discussed on talk page, not here. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 17:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Prisoner (novel)

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

The entries in this article should be merged into The Prisoner (disambiguation).

This page title should then either a) have Henderson's Boys: The Prisoner moved to it (Henderson's Boys: The Prisoner is the only novel called The Prisoner that has an article on Wikipedia; and consensus has been reached to delete the "Henderson's Boys:" from the Henderson's Boys novel articles' titles), or b) redirect to The Prisoner (disambiguation)#Literature. Ollieinc (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the only problem is that Henderson's Boys: The Prisoner has some pretty serious issues with notability to where I don't know that it really merits a page outside of the main series article. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage for the novel apart from this Guardian review and being part of an overall notable series doesn't automatically mean that each novel has achieved notability enough to have separate articles. For that matter, that seems to be a big problem for a lot of the books in the Henderson's Boys series, as they all seem to have issues with independent notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Prisoner (disambiguation). I don't see where the Henderson Boys book particularly warrants a page outside of Henderson's Boys and I would say that it should redirect to the main series page. As a matter of fact, I'll go ahead and WP:BEBOLD and do that right now. However that said, I don't see where we need a separate disambiguation page for the books since there aren't that many books by this title. I've already merged the data into the disambiguation page, so all we have to do now is redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd redirected, but my redirect was undone and I've been asked to get a consensus on the book pages, so I've opened an AfD for the individual books here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. This is a content dispute, not a discussion regarding deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon Enterprise Solutions

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

This unsourced article is about a small subsidiary of Verizon Communications, the article for which contains a much fuller treatment of it than this standalone entry. There is no point in merging this entry into Verizon Communications as it contains much less information than the parent article. DocumentError (talk) 02:56, 31 August 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 August 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Verizon Communications; insufficient specific notability to justify separate articles on each channel-based division. (The same could go for Verizon Long Distance.) AllyD (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been significantly improved and I hereby withdraw my nomination. DocumentError (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O. Vincent Haleck

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

Only mentioned in LDS-related sources or fleetingly. That's not enough for GNG, sorry. p b p 02:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in the Samoa Observer seems sufficient. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Eastmain, but for different reasons. The only Samoan Observer coverage I can find on this guy appears to be word-for-word reprints of press releases by Haleck's church. This coverage does not meet GNG's independent requirement, however, I believe the source is reliable. The same argument applies here as for all of the Second Quorum of the Seventies. (See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_August_30, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Devn Cornish, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen (2nd nomination).)

Here is my position. GNG is not the appropriate standard for people; it's a default standard that can provide for notability if none of the people standards apply. Looking just at notability for people, high-ranking clergy generally come in based on the honor afforded to the position, the quasi-political authority that they hold, and the status as an expert in their fields afforded by the office.

A clear rule for clergy would be preferable, but the general concensus has been that high-ranking clergy are nonetheless notable even without one. The common denominator appears to be the office itself, not sources. If notability is established under the people standards, then "independent" sources are not required to source an article, just "reliable" sources. It's easy to conflate this standard with the GNG rules, but they are seperate standards. That said truly independent third-party sources are still best for a good article.

As sources are still important to show notability, below are primarily independent sources that demonstrate Vinson's status based on his office (these are not meant to show the kind of converage that would meet GNG, but rather to show how assumption of the office changes Haleck's notability). If the community insists on GNG, then I say delete the article. If however, the people notability standards apply (which I think they do), then the below sources should be sufficient to demonstrate the notability based on the office. From there it is just a question of reliable sources which the church-affiliate sources appear to be despite questions of independence. The blogs might not be as "reliable" for sourcing the article, but they can still serve in establishing notability.

English:

http://mormonsoprano.com/2012/09/19/having-the-vision-to-do/ (independent analysis of Haleck's talk)

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-21/kiribati-climate-change-destroys-pacific-island-nation#p1 (independent source - brief reference to Haleck's role in Mormon church and his efforts in Kiribati)

http://davisclipper.com/bookmark/12654145-Church-calls-new-general-authorities (independent news announcing Haleck's position)

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/samoan-mormons-claim-language-banned-5588579 (Haleck responding to allegations that church banned Samoan language in Brisbane)

http://www.tongadailynews.to/?p=7602 (independent source - PM of Tonga expresses gratitude to Haleck as representative of church for cyclone relief)

http://jonesmission.weebly.com/oct-nov-2012.html (independent missionary blog expressing excitment for opportunity to be taught by Haleck)

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormons-around-world-country-newsroom-18-april (official church news mentioning Haleck's role in Tongan cyclone relief)

http://www.atuna.com/NewsArchive/ViewArticle.asp?ID=3614 (independent source that identifies Haleck's pre-church occupation)

http://mdhpayne.blogspot.com/2012/04/elder-haleck.html (independent missionary blog expressing excitment for opportunity to be taught by Haleck)

http://www.pierfamily.com/wordpress/2013/02/15/zone-conference-with-elder-haleck/ (independent missionary blog expressing excitment for opportunity to be taught by Haleck)

http://valjudybushmission.blogspot.com/2013/08/zone-conference-missionary-comings-and.html (independent missionary blog expressing excitment to meet Haleck, and stating celebration held in his honor when he came to reorganize a stake)

Portuguese:

http://escrituradodia.blogspot.com/2012_06_29_archive.html (independent compilation of inspirational quotes - includes Elder Vinson with other church leaders from different decades, suggesting the long-lasting impact his teachings are considered to have on the church)

Sorry for the length, but about half of it is the sources themselves. -Vojen (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage like http://www.mic.gov.to/news-today/press-releases/5031-government-signs-agreement-with-lds-church-to-further-cyclone-development-assistance- indicates sufficient degree of notability (representing an int'l church network towards multiple national governments). --Soman (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vojen's excellent argument on the subject on this and other deletion pages like it. By the way, thanks for notifying me about this deletion discussion. If it were not mentioned on the deletion review for Terence M. Vinson, I might never have known about it. Again, I believe we do articles a great disservice when we nominate them for deletion rather than taking time and effort to instead discuss their issues on the article talk pages to bring them up to Wikipedia standards. The higher road would be to exert every effort possible to ensure articles meet Wikipedia standards. It is obvious you are not willing to take that higher road. It also seems to be evident that no line of reasoning will satisfy you. I am in favor of keeping this article. I believe that if we as editors worked together, we could get this article up to appropriate Wikipedia standards in no time. But it's obvious you're not interested in doing so. I don't get why articles about Second Quorum members are being unfairly singled out when there are several other poorly sourced or unsourced articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted before these ones are, if poor sourcing is the real issue here. But I'm not about to mention specific articles. Doing so would be signing such articles' death warrants. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MGM-Pathé Communications

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

There isn't anything here that can't be stated on the MGM page. Freshh! (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements and "solid consensus for keep" of this new article at the last AFD just last July. As was pointed out then, there is no need to overburden the suggested target with so much additional and well-sourced information... information about this unique and historical aspect that would then be culled from MGM as WP:UNDUE. When an anonymous one-day SPA IP tags something for a merge discussion, a lack of discussion tends to show a lack of consensus for a merge, and a "let's merge it anyway" is not a proper deletion rationale. 12:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)

Sorry... me... I failed to hit all four tildes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ~~the unnammed editor above~~ MichaelQSchmidt - This was only nominated a month ago (Although I assume you had no idea until today), Anyway I have to say keep per MichaelQSchmidt's huge improvements back then, Plus also seems more sensible to have it separated as opposed to merging . –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to fall into WP:NOTAGAIN. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC). Added: I just noticed that I accidentally closed it a day earlier than I should have done (my technical error, went to a wrong page). If someone has a problem with my closure, please let me know.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mazerinne Holskamp

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

Actress with only 1 role. I say redirect to the film page or userfy. Wgolf (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kai Rabe gegen die Vatikankiller has next to none info and should probably also be listed, Anyway per nom no evidence of notability, Fails WP:NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Yeah I was just thinking that she should be merged to that if it is to be kept. Wgolf (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NACTOR WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one role in a film from 1998, nothing more since then. Google hits are IMDb clones. Per WP:NACTOR. --Ben Ben (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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