Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 January	28 January >

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lynch (American football)

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

delete, per WP:NGRIDIRON does not meet notability requirements. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has been active for over two years now, and only now has it been considered for deletion. Also, per WP:NGRIDIRON no college athlete is notable, but yet there are many articles that have been created. This article had no issues when the subject of the article was a freshman, so why now, as he is going pro, is there an issue? Canadalovesnd 23:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he has had an article for a length of time does not preclude deletion discussions. I definitely have no prejudice to republishing when/if he is drafted. You are correct, Gridiron does indeed deal with the professional aspect more, I do not believe he meets WP:NCOLLATH either. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, the length of time the article has existed is irrelevant, and so is any other stuff. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources in the article do not appear to be the types of sources we depend on for establishing notability and I can find no other sources online. Therefore, it appears that the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Would reconsider if proper sources were provided or another notability standard were raised.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basic failure of WP:NSPORTS. Obvious delete. Absent substantial coverage, college athletes aren't notable. In contrast, see Tim Tebow's page, which existed prior to his NFL career. Canadalovesnd's exaggerated concern is nothing to worry about. We have notability guidelines for a reason. Shadowjams (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good college player but not notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS, and any other notability measure I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Wisła Płock season

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

Article was a contested prod. User:Mentoz86 added the prod to the article with the reason Only teams from from fully-pro leagues should have season-articles. Whilst thats not always the case i.e. notability should be considered this article shows no hint of meeting notability guidelines and is massively incomplete. It's simply not fit to be in the encyclopaedia at present. Blethering Scot 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, per WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. Article is just a heap of unreferenced stats, violates WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 09:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS, however, I observe that NSEASONS says "top professional leagues", not "top FULLY professional leagues", so the WP:FPL criteria do not necessarily apply here, so an article on this club's season in the Polish second teir could be notable, but that would require at least some sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original PROD'er. Mentoz (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect because the band article has also been deleted. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Allen (musician)

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

Article was proposed for deletion on WP:BLP grounds but contested. I am starting a formal deletion process because I could not find any evidence of this musician's notability in reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with band page. This article clearly does not comply with Per WP:MUSICBIO "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases" I also not his band page is nominated for deletion as well. Looks like a vanity project. Deletion of this page would help their cause I think...! --gilgongo (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Member of a barely notable band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.190.31.213 (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ricky

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

Article was proposed for deletion on WP:BLP grounds but contested. I am starting a formal deletion process because I could not find any evidence of this musician's notability in reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination for other band member pages from this group Joseph_Allen_(musician) --gilgongo (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Herron

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

delete, per WP:NGRIDIRON does not meet notability requirements. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG at this time.--Yankees10 22:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, not seeing the coverage necessary for inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable. I can't see any substantial evidence that this person is anything other than a very minor sportsman. --gilgongo (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Native Deen

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Of supplied references, all are broken links with the exception of a college newspaper article which does not mention this band at all. Not signed to a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels. RadioFan (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also nominating the accompanying article on an album by this artist Deen You Know for the same reason.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The band has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources, including The Washington Post, Fox News, Emel, CNN, The New York Times and BBC News therefore it passes WP:GNG. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (no such thing as "speedy keep") - I think if we delete this, we'd need to delete vast swathes of similar marginally notable bands with some mention in the mainstream press. --gilgongo (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If the conclusion of a DRV is "list at AfD", it is quite reasonable for the AfD closer to do that as a procedural action without expressing an opinion. JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritmeyer

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

Was deleted A7 and then listed at DRV [1]. The DRV closed as list at AFD so here we are. As the DRV closer my nomination is an administrative action to enforce the close so I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the article can be verified as correct in substance, the topic is notable. However, at the DRV many people (including myself) were unsuccessful in finding any information other than that Ritmeyer baby grand pianos exist (e.g. [2]). So, although it is possible that the further claims in the article are valid, they certainly require justification. Mere existence is a wholly inadequate basis for an article so the present version should be deleted. If anyone comes up with references, or offers to develop a referenced article, I'll rethink. Thincat (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No sources upon which to base an article. Frankly, the speedy deletion should have stood and this should never have been relisted. Reyk _YO! 00:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could only find one ebay listing from this year, and one block advert from 1957 (both linked to in the DRV). There will be more sources available offline, but we do not have enough sources (yet) to write even a stub which includes assertions of notability that are verifiable. If that cant be fixed during this Afd, it is indistinguishable from a hoax, but I would be happy to see it userified or moved into the new draft namespace, in the hope someone with specialised resources or knowledge can rescue it or challenge the notability of it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Speedy keep NPASR Starting an AfD without a deletion argument is not a neutral action. A company that has been out of business for forty years is not a high-risk topic that might justify administrative intervention to create an AfD. There are only two possibilities, either someone is willing to make an AfD nomination, or no one is willing to make an AfD nomination, and in neither of these two cases is administrative intervention needed. Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically an AfD may continue regardless of the position of the nominator if one or more editors have !voted delete. This is why a withdrawn nomination is only speedily keep if no other delete !votes have been brought forth. At the time of your speedy keep argument there have already been delete rationales. This is kind of half a dozen of one and 6 of the other. Mkdw ^talk 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can change my !vote to a Procedural closure NPASR if you want. Unscintillating (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I haven't been able to find anything substantial on this manufacturer. Weak because there may be sources in German that I can't locate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the supposed notability of the subject, there has been time enough to establish some proper sources. If none can be found, we have no choice but to delete. We can't encourage the existence of completely unverified articles. --gilgongo (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. DRVing this was just plain silly, there are NO sources, reliable or otherwise. The only supposed evidence that such a company ever even existed is a single picture on eBay, which isn't a reliable source--for example, how can we be sure Ritmeyer is even the company name and not the model, or the family that owned it, or that it wasn't stencilled there a month ago or even photoshopped on? The primary claim in the article, that Ritmeyer pianos are highly sought-after and valuable to collectors, strongly appears to be false, and NOTHING about this subject, including existence, is verifiable by any reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible assertion of notability. Mkdw ^talk 09:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cheated and asked a music librarian take a shot at this. They came up with nothing. So delete it is. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails CORP -- Y not? 06:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bangtan Boys. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V (singer)

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

The subject is not notable in his own right. Per WP:MUSICBIO, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". The article should be redirected to Bangtan Boys. WWGB (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not individually notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with band page. There are a huge number of individual, non-notable band member pages like this which contribute nothing to the understanding of the music or the people behind it. --gilgongo (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bangtan Boys. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeon Jungkook

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

The subject is not notable in his own right. Per WP:MUSICBIO, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". The article should be redirected to Bangtan Boys. This is a contested redirect. WWGB (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangtan Boys. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not a valid article as per WP:MUSICBIO. At the very least needs to redirect to the band page. I don't see how this article could be defended. Is this person notable in their own right without the band? No. --gilgongo (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; no independent notability established. Gong show 05:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony David Jacques

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

Borderline speedyable vanity bio; despite the large list of refs, most are to the subject's own site; no WP:RS refs demonstrating non-trivial coverage. The only editor of this page also created several articles about necktie knots the subject designed: The Jacques Knot, Templar knot, Excalibur knot, Devil Makes Three knot, Corkscrew knot.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much exactly what the nom says: vanity bio with no reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything that makes this person notable in a reliable source. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with vanity, notwithstanding the below. Nelson50^T 23:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm the creator of the page. The personal site links are primarily due to the fact that Manarchy Magazine went under and the content disappeared. It was then archived by the subject for posterity.

In direct response to the initial post, however, of the 74 remaining references, and minus the 10 for archived Manarchy articles, over 50 are to a third party site with which the subject was only affiliated by solicitation. That is quite a majority. This person has over a decade of creative work to his name in many diverse fields. He keeps a fairly private life, but myself and several of his fellow writers (Caleb J. Ross, Craig Clevenger, Richard Thomas) felt like this page was long overdue, and a few of them have helped in creating it.

There are also (unfortunately) many copy-writing and ghostwriting projects which cannot be disclosed due to non-disclosure agreements for a few years yet. I've just been notified that the Installation Solutions copy-writing gig must be removed from this page due to the same type of agreement, and this must be done before the new site goes live.

All that is to say, we did this page for Anthony because he is one of those guys who keeps the rest of us going, he's always involved in our projects on some level, and we felt his diverse body of work merits mention. Irelocus (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would removing the content about knots and cars (Misc) help the article be more encyclopedic? I suppose adding that stuff was a bit non-essential. Or would any other edits help? I'd really like to know what would improve the article? Thanks! Irelocus (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not free webhosting for posting vanity bios, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I was looking for constructive input on improving input. On the sample discussion page for articles for deletion, I noticed one user suggested that people who are published outside of being self-published, which this subject is, have a level of notoriety inherent. I believe this subject falls under that category, but if not, I would certainly like to understand the difference. Thanks!~ Irelocus (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article I reference (I suppose I ought to include that!) is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonny Hicks The comment I noted is from BigDT and follows: Keep for now ... authors that are more than self-published are inherently notable.

I think that is more than fair, even if other content is removed. The majority if this subject's bibliography is professional, often solicited work.Irelocus (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, Irelocus, but he doesn't (yet) meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Let me explain. This is an international encyclopedia, and in order to have an article here a person must be notable, which basically means famous. The way we recognize when a person is notable is that other, unrelated, reliable sources have written significantly ABOUT him. So anything he himself has written does not count toward notability. Things said by his publishers do not count for notability. That fact that he uses a "real" publisher is not enough for notability. Things said by most blogs do not count; that includes goodreads, because it basically writes about everything and everyone that is ever published. If his writings get reviewed in significant sources like major newspapers, or if he wins a significant award (significant means a truly notable award, not something like the book-of-the-month at his hometown library) - if those things begin to happen then we can consider an article about him. But at this point in his career he hasn't achieved that level of notability. In addition to the sources you cited (which are not actually 74 sources since many are duplicates), I also did a search and found nothing to make him notable. In other words, it isn't about your writing; there is nothing you can do to "improve" the article if the subject just doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria. Maybe someday he will, but not right now. --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As for your "Bonny Hicks" precedent, that was from 2006. The current criteria for notability of an author can be found at WP:AUTHOR. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks for your response, MelanieN. If this is the direction it goes, I think I get it. Is there anywhere I can archive this for safekeeping pending more reliable sources (reviews, readings, etc...) over the next year or so? I've recently lost several other articles which were deleted without discussion or notice, and I'd hate to think I'd be starting from scratch on this one as well. What's the protocol for this? How do you guys typically handle this with posts you've created, etc...? Irelocus (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can request that the closing administrator "userfy" it to you. Here's what that means: After a week or so, the discussion will be closed by an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator (that's a volunteer editor who has been entrusted with some extra tools such as the ability to delete articles). If you ask them, by putting a request here, they will usually agree to put a copy of the article into your "userspace." There you can see it and work on it, but it is not part of the encyclopedia. It is "safe" in your userspace; no one will hassle you about it or try to delete it. You can work on it, add sources, etc. If sometime in the future you want an honest opinion about whether the improved article is in encyclopedic shape, you can ask me at my talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty cool, actually. Is that possible for some other pages that disappeared? They were smaller, I didn't even get a heads up on them. :P I mean, there's a record somewhere, right? Irelocus (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this article userfied, you still have to ask for it. You can do so here on this page, with a comment along the lines of "Attention closing administrator: If the result is "delete", please userfy to me." Or you can wait to see the result here, and if it is deleted, you can ask the deleting administrator then. As far as the others that were deleted - I assume you mean the articles about the knots - there is no chance of any of these ever becoming Wikipedia articles, so why do you want them? Just for your own records? You can ask the administrator who deleted them, on their talk page, if they would userfy them to you, or email them or otherwise give you a copy. It would be their call. If I were that administrator, I might hesitate to restore them, even in your own userspace, because userfying is basically a way of incubating an article until it is ready for inclusion here. You may just have to reconstruct them yourself - if you want a copy. --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the other articles, some of the knots may be featured on a TV show for summer/fall 2015, so yeah, it'd be nice to have a copy. At that point they may have enough notoriety to be included here. Additionally, we may be setting up our own wiki around men's fashion and accessories in the near future as well.

I just thought it'd be nice to not cover the same ground if unnecessary. Thanks so much for your help!Irelocus (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(PS: I have contacted the user who deleted them, and he doesn't seem too interested in being helpful. On his talk page he says that is not the place to talk to him, that I should talk here, but then he isn't talking about things here, either. Seems silly. Again, ah well.)

Attention closing administrator: If the result is "delete", please userfy to me."Irelocus (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what I actually said that I wasn't going to go in to depth explaining policies whose links I'd already provided to you. I'm not interested in restoring articles to your userspace that will never become articles. Wikipedia is not free webhosting. You apparently already have a blog; post about necktie knots you made up there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm Anthony. I'd actually appreciate if this page were deleted. I have no desire to have people I don't know able to edit details about my life or decide what is important or relevant. Especially given the self-importance of some people involved in this process here. I'm the one who decides that stuff, and I'm the one who gets to be the a**hole when someone gets it wrong.

Notwithstanding, "ire" and I go way back. She's an enthusiastic individual who might make someone a great publicist, with a little restraint, I suppose. That said, I'm glad she forgot to log off the other day. I have since taken extra measures on my machine here (and I'll also be locking my office) and will see if we can (or need to) set up a block for wikipedia, though that may not be as easy a sell with IT as blocking youtube or facebook.

If you could go ahead and delete that ireLocus account as well, as that's my alias and my old email address, I'd appreciate that.

Best, ADJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.233.180 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathize. I've had my fair share of overzealous admirers creep into my office to write articles on Wikipedia about me and the various hat-wearing methods I've invented. The autobiographical article will be deleted in a few days at the conclusion of the AfD process. Regarding the account, please see WP:DISAPPEAR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Marshman

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights, fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lúcio Linhares

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

MMA fighter who lost both of his top tier fights and fails to meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. The losses were several years ago so further chance unlikely.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see Mdtemp and Peter Rehse have been nominating multiple articles on MMA fighters for deletion, mostly for the same reasons. Wouldn't it be easier to nominate them all at once? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 16:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took it upon myself to go through all non-assessed articles and well assess them in a very short time - that was responsible for the spike in numbers at least on my part and I can't see a similar thing happening anytime soon. The problem with multiple AfD's though is that the primary criteria being used can be mitigated by individual circumstance including level of independent coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EUROTAI

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Does not have an article in another language, i.e. Turkish. I'm sending to AfD rather than prod because this might be an easy one to have missed something on. Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I dont think not having a correspondng article is a must. Pass a Method talk 17:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not a must, but it is important to look for corresponding articles as they can contain useful information. What are your reasons for voting that this is notable User:Pass a Method? Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Although the article doesn't reflect it, the venture is notable. Co operates with Turkish Aerospace Industries. 1 2 3 4--Kafkasmurat (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Bostwick

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Machado (martial artist)

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

Nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE or that there's the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is about who he related to - WP:NOTINHERITED.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and fails to show why subject is notable. Article focuses on who he is related to, but notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to creation of a neutral article if notability can be established from independent sources. Users connected with the company are advised to read WP:PSCOI. JohnCD (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FairFX

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

This is an advert. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The company is one of the main FX providers in the United Kingdom. We do not delete articles for being adverts unless they are irredeemable, and this article hasn't even been tagged {{POV}} or {{advert}} before nominating. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An advertisement is precisely what it is. The claims above are not in the article, and have no visible sources. What the article does have is multiple references to its own website. Really this should have been removed by speedy. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too promotional. Can always be recreated later with a more neutral tone and better sources. This incarnation of the article is not viable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And re-write from scratch. If we allow this then anyone peddling anything gets a free bump on Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with knowing about the company and its place in the market though from a NPOV (and hey, it's a financial outfit - it might have all sorts of info we can find about it that would be in the public interest to know... !) --gilgongo (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University Hospitals of Cleveland#Harrington Project. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Harrington Project

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

the references are either press releases, announcements, or have nothing to do with this specific project. It's promotion for both the project and the company that sponsors it, which is not notable enough for an article . Most of the recipients seem to be at the Associate professor level and probably not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University Hospitals of Cleveland, where I have already created a short paragraph about this project. Basically this is a 2012 grant to those hospitals. (Took me some digging to figure out what it actually is; I have clarified the lead.) The rest of the article - the long list of "scholars", the seemingly unrelated information about a for-profit company - is spam and not worth preserving. But the project itself has received enough local coverage to rate a mention at the Hospitals article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Thyes

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

Unsourced BLP. Also, does not meet WP:ARTIST. —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found it easy to find references. Much may be in German, but it's there. The article seems to been a direct translation for the german version, which also has problems. Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deWP article's information, now included in our article, shows adequately there are works in major museums. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improved, seems ok now...Modernist (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See Talk:Free Christians (Britain)#Requested move for discussion about what to do with the title. --BDD (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Christians

I am nominating the article Free Christians for deletion as it has been deemed to be a hoax article by several Wikipedia users. See here for more info. --Devin Murphy (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE It doesn't seem to be notable to begin with, but if it is a hoax (as it appears), it ought to be speedy deleted under CSD G3.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it is not a hoax (the World Christian Encyclopedia reference seems to be genuine), this is almost entirely original research. St Anselm (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. There is a body called General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches, but there is Free Christians (Britain) for them. This article seems not to be restricted to them or any particular group. It says things about various groups of independent churches, which (i) are not individually notable, and (ii) by definition do not have an over-arching organisation.The external links seem to be to unrelated independent groups. The page nondenominational Christianity is sufficient; all that this page could be is a content fork, so a new redirect to that page should be created after deletion. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would point also to the fact that the article seems to be almost entirely the creation of a single account, and is also original research as stated above. --gilgongo (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect, if a suitable target can be identified). The contnet is so amorphous that I cannot work out what it is about. A redirect to General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches would certainly be wrong, as the article claims they adhere to a creed that is explicitly Trinitarian. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In light of this result, and the character of the introductory section of the page, I am moving it back to its original title, National poet. bd2412 T 14:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

List of national poets

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

This seems to be almost entirely WP:OR, including the supposed definition of 'national poet' in the lead. I cannot find anywhere else a clear definition of this term, or any indication that it means anything other than a notable (in some person's opinion) poet of the country concerned. Very few of those listed are sourced, and none of those that are sourced gives any helpful understanding of what 'national poet' might mean. No justification or criterion is given in the list for any of the inclusions. There is no separate WP article 'National poet' to correspond to the list - the link for this just goes back to the 'List of...' article. The article is therefore a random list of editors' favourites, it seems. The whole thing is unencyclopaedic; and fails under notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). Therefore, delete. Smerus (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find sources which discuss the topic both in a general way and for specific countries. For example, see:

So, if there should be some dispute whether poets like Shakespeare, Burns and Dylan Thomas merit this status for their respective countries, it will not be difficult to find such sources to settle the matter. The topic passes WP:LISTN and so our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Smerus brings up valid points, but the sources found by Andrew demonstrate "national poet" is a term of currency in a general sense, though not as an state title or honor, so it's not OR exactly ("national poet" is uncapitalized, not a proper noun or title). The lack of sources is an unfortunate legacy cleanup (most of it written 2005-07 when sourcing was less an issue) - but AfD is a topic-level discussion not content-level. Over time it does look like some editors add whatever name they want, so the list of poets probably needs to be deleted entirely and begun over with only those that have sources. This is the type of article that will need constant watching to avoid OR creeping in. Topics of national pride can be a pain to maintain. -- GreenC 21:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the points made above by Andrew and GreenC. But if we remove all those listed who are not sourced as 'national poets' there will not be much left of the list. It would in those circumstances be better then to rename the article as 'National poet', to include a sourced definition and just the few sourced examples to illustrate the definition.

But I am not convinced that there is any demonstration in Andrew's comments of the validity of 'National poet' as a topic. The book he cites 'The Making of the National Poet' is about Shakespeare only; 'Foundations of National Identity' deals only with Mickiewicz, and states 'in the same way as we have national composers, we have also national poets'. But do we have 'national composers'? What exactly des this mean, or, more precisely, define? The blurb for 'American Bards' states "Walt Whitman has long been regarded as the quintessential American bard, the poet who best represents all that is distinctive about life in the United States." Do we accept a commercial blurb as a source for an encyclopaedic definition? 'Figures of National Poets' is not much more help; it actually denies that Shakespeare is a national poet - "a national poet must write poetry which identifies with the nation's cause" , which would also seem to cast doubt on Whitman and others. In short, this seems to be an encyclopaedic minefield, and it's not clear to me that WP should be in effect endorsing this vague concept which seems to mean merely whatever people want it to mean. --Smerus (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia's are not (always) precise definitions that's why we have a multiple POV rule. I agree to rename and drop the "list of", prose is the better way to go describing the sources and context of how the term is applied, even including contradictory POVs. --GreenC 15:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been

included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this is covered in the article, but is this generally an annual honor? Do nations change there national poets regularly? Should dates be included in the article? How is it to be maintained next year? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this is not an offical or formal honour of any sort, just a turn of phrase which is applied randomly by commentators.--Smerus (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This book cited by several academic publications is directly relevant. It defines the term as relevant to the emergence of national identities, primarily during Romanticism. Many other academic papers use the term as it applies to this or that country (see [3], [4], [5]), so I'd say this topic easily passes list notability as the topic is covered as a group. Diego (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this definition is a help - though it would be nice if other supporting definitions could be found. In any case, I think GreenC's suggestion of changing from a list to an article, using this and/or other definitions would be advisable. The exsiting names listed would have to be severely pruned, except where citations can be made. However, the problem here is that National poet already exists as a redirect to this list, so presumably we would have to find an admin to make the name change.--Smerus (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This reference coincides with Virgil Nemoianu in linking national poets with ancient literature and romantic nationalism. I'd agree to move the article to National poet, as there isn't an article for the concept. If unsourced entries are removed from the article, they should be preserved either at the talk page or as a draft - so that editors are likely to found them and include them with adequate references in the future. Diego (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

completely agree.--Smerus (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as written the article constitutes a neologism being developed with original research. The phrasing National Poet has various meanings and we should not be redefining how the terminology is used to suit our perspectives. The National Poet of Wales for example is an annual honor. So the list is incomplete, and the definition provided improper for omitting accurate explication of what national poets are in many jurisdictions. The list omit lots of persons designated national poets and is simply an arbitrary of poets that may have been called national poets or something similar in some sources while excluding other poets and other sources that aren't consistent with the arbitrary definition (redefinition?) we've created. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the existing article Poet laureate does a better job of covering this subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are several topics covered with the same name we use disambiguation, there's no reason to delete any of them; and the list being incomplete definitely falls out of the scope of this discussion - deletion is not cleanup. Methinks we could use the National poet page as a disambiguation within these two meanings and articles; I'll give it a try, until this discussion ends. Diego (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If the final discussion consensus is to keep, as seems likely, I suggest to move the article to National poet (Romanticism) so that all existing incoming links can be directed to that title without ambiguity. Diego (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just note: Poet laureate is quite a different topic to National poet. The former is an official, formal position (appointed in the UK by the monarch). The latter is a term which can be applied by anyone to anyone who shows some indications of 'nationality'. Don't confuse the two topics!--Smerus (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Poet laureate is quite a different topic to National poet." Says you. As noted above, National Poets in some jurisdictions are official, formal, appointed positions. The problem with this article is that it is trying to create a new definition (neologism)and then fit the world to that arbitrary and invented definition, excluding sources and examples that don't conform. Best to improve the existing article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a bit of logic here. It's not a case of 'says me', and there is no call for you to impute WP:OR to other editors - let me remind you of WP:AGF. As regards 'Poet Laureate' and 'National Poet' - if some As are Bs, it doesn't follow that all As are Bs, or that all Bs are As. In other words, they are indeed two quite separate topics.--Smerus (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call it a "neologism", when the term has been used with essentially the same meaning since at least the seventeenth century? (And yes, there are national poets that were not Poet Laureates, and poet lauterates that were nothing like a National Poet - despite their official title including the pompous name). Diego (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andrew has proven the tern is used. Just need to find a reliable source for everyone on the list that calls them that, or discuss it on the talk page to see what should remain and what should go. Dream Focus 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 4, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LC is neither a policy nor a guideline. Instead it is just an essay which was created by Stifle himself. His !vote is therefore just saying, in effect, delete because I say so. No evidence or details is provided to support the claims of numbers 4, 7 and 10 and so they are the vaguest of waves. Andrew (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rubbish. It simply means the reasons I suggest deletion are those three points, which I have not retyped to save space. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am reminded of an old joke. Anyway, if we dereference these numbers, we have:

4. The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable

7. The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category

10. Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.

Numbers 4 and 10 have been refuted already by reference to the substantial sources which discuss the concept and particulars of national poets in detail. For yet more examples, see:

Adam Mickiewicz: the national poet of Poland
The National Poet: The Emergence of a Concept in Hebrew Literary Criticism
Khushhal Khan—the national poet of the Afghans
The National Poet of Bangladesh
Mácha, the Czech National Poet
Taras Shevchenko: the National Poet of the Ukraine
'National Poets' in the Romantic Age: Emergence and Importance
Kalidasa: the national poet of India
The Artist as Nation‐Builder: William Butler Yeats and Chaim Nachman Bialik

The remaining point 7 seems a logical nonsense as, if the topic were original or unverifiable, then a category would not be wanted either. And, of course, our actual guideline states, "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion". So, we see that the numbers are just for show and all the !vote amounts to is a general dislike of lists. Andrew (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep The meaning may be slightly different from nation to nation, and individual to individual, but this is true of most subjects. It's nonetheless a unified subject aand appropriate for an article., 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contents (and definition in the lead) have to be checked and sourced on a case by case basis but there is no reason to delete the page as a whole. The concept of "national poet" was certainly not invented by the creator of this page. It is an old one. Anyone familiar with the status of Petőfi, Eminescu, Pushkin or Bialik in respectively Hungary, Roumania, Russia and Israel, just to mention a few examples, would have to know that. Such a page can be interesting to readers, because it gathers in one place facts about the literatures and cultures of smaller countries that it would otherwise be tedious to have to research on one's own, as long as as the contents are checked for accuracy and don't generate endless controversies. Contact Basemetal here 12:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pirated movie release types

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

Not notable except to a small subculture. Most of the explanatory content in this article is unsourced and/or reads like a guide for how to choose which torrent to download and why. Very unencyclopedic (I hate that word) tone. Lots of stuff that looks like original research. If this article is to stick around, it needs to be completely rewritten. most of the content that is actually sourced encyclopedic stuff probably belongs in the main copyright infringement or warez articles. Eris Discord | Talk 19:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - FWIW - article seems sufficiently well-presented and well-sourced - improvements to the article *always* welcome of course - incidently, 90-day stats (over 152k views) for the article => http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Pirated_movie_release_types - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — small subculture? Are you kidding me? This stuff is wildly popular, and to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous, or severely out of the loop. Vranak (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a huge area, and one that is only growing with significant developments in law and business each month that passes. I do agree that the article needs to be fleshed out and more content added, but, I am sure that this will come simply because of the large number of people with an interest in the subject matter. BerkeleyLaw1979 —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:ILIKEIT is not a very good argument to make in deletion discussions. The sources in the article really don't do much, if at all, to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said 'I like it' or anything to that effect, NinjaRobot. Bit of a straw man argument on your part I have to say. Vranak (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is exactly the sort of information Wikipedia is good at collating and is highly encyclopaedic for the very fact that it is obscure. I'm not making an WP:ILIKEIT assertion - I'm making a much broader one: where else would such knowledge be recorded? --gilgongo (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if no one else is recording it, that's a pretty good indication that we shouldn't be either. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a regrettable, let's-keep-our-heads-in-the-sand attitude you espouse. The no original research rule is an idea, a useful concept, not something ironclad that blows all other considerations out of the water. Vranak (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide useful information in an easily accessible manner. This article accomplishes exactly that with a notable subject matter while being thoroughly referenced. Biglulu (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tuckman

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:NHOOPS. See revision history, for version pre-BLP changes. Note, there is a different Michael Tuckman who is involved in film. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no apparent reviews. Fair number of worldcat holdings but not enough alone. -- GreenC 02:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Artist Management (company)

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

Spammy entry for a non-notable agency. Only coverage is a brief article in the WSJ and a couple of words in various zines (there's one left in the article after some pruning). Around the web you'll find some more of those fashion zines and tabloids where the name is mentioned, but no in-depth discussion, nothing that makes this a notable subject for an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet our notability standards. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log shows two earlier versions were speedily deleted. Likewise for Jason Kanner, an article about the company's founder. This looks like "native advertising" to me. —rybec 00:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per our policy WP:NOTADVERTISING: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". - tucoxn\^talk 22:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Shivers

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - only one top tier fight. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable for MMA, but playing in the NFL means he meets WP:NGRIDIRON.Mdtemp (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable since he played in the NFL. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played only 3 games, but that's enough for NGRIDIRON. Papaursa (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g12, copyright violation, without prejudice to recreating an original article or redirect. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Ignitor

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

This unsourced article seems to be more of an essay criticising the product, as opposed to an encyclopedic article with information about the product. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's somebody's review of this product. See WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- Redirect to Hero MotoCorp#Products and Services. Looks like product review in current state. Hitro talk 17:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There do appear to be enough reliable sources to have an article about the bike, but as others have noted, there's really nothing salvageable in what's here, since it's written as a review instead of an encyclopedia article. Perhaps a more technically appropriate way to handle this rather than simply deleting is to reduce it to a one sentence stub. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Article is copied and pasted from this website.Speedy delete under G12 or Immediate redirect would be the best option as of now. Hitro talk 18:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wander Braga

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and WP:GNG with no signficant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Shone

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. No top tier fights Peter Rehse (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about an MMA fighter with only 2 fights, neither of them top tier.Mdtemp (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LaTasha Marzolla

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Two non-notables don't make a notable so other job does not give her notability either. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly not notable for her MMA. Don't think her work for Playboy makes her notable, but I'll change my vote if someone convinces me I'm wrong about that.Mdtemp (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinzô Machida

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights (only 4 total) and the only link is to his fight record--fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lewison

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

Previous AfD was for deletion but PROD of the repost was contested on both notability grounds and additional references. I don't think either is substantially different from the deleted article. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't done anything since the previous deletion to make himself a more notable boxer.Mdtemp (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's just had one minor fight since the last AfD discussion. No indication of him fighting in any major international competition as an amateur. Papaursa (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a noteworthy career.LawrenceJayM (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While his professional career is not noteworthy, according to WP:NBOX, an amateur boxer is notable if he has "fought in the final of a national amateur championship for an International Boxing Association/Association Internationale de Boxe Amateur (AIBA) affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal winning country." Lewison fought in the 2000 finals of the Amateur Boxing Association of England, which is an association that is both AIBA-affiliated and has won medals. He would therefore seem to meet the notability requirement. It seems from the previous AFD discussion that the article only included information about his professional career, so I don't think it can provide any useful guidance about the notability of his amateur career. Wieno (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magomed Shikhshabekov

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

Non-notable MMA fighter no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and has no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gander Green Lane

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

unencyclopaedic cruft. Nothing in the article indicates why the subject is notable. Yes, it exists, that seems to be about all. In fact, most of the text is purely geographical. We haven't plunged the depths of listing every single retail outlet on the lane but it's getting there. I mean, who honestly cares that there's West Sutton railway station, a tinylittletinkers or Londis or Fitness4Less or North Cheam Academy of Dance or LibDems office on that lane – all of these are sourced to self-published sources.

A "juicy tidbit" is about a spate of burglaries in the lane. If the lane is notable because of it, then most roads would qualify by the same logic. At best, this should redirect to the Borough Sports Ground article. Ohc ^¡digame! 16:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as per nom. There is no real significant coverage in reliable sources here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains three landmarks, Borough Sports Ground, West Sutton railway station AND St. Anthony's Hospital, London.--Laun chba ller 21:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence does not equate with notability; Wikipedia is not a travel guide. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no primary topic for which we can redirect though. At least convert into a disambiguation page as has already been suggested.--Laun chba ller 16:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notability is not inherited; the fact there are notable landmarks on the road does not make the road notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete failure to meet notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Utterly non-notable.--Charles (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Utter non notable crap. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable per WP:N, and also not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOTTRAVEL. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Loeffler

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Single top tier fight (loss) long ago. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Retired MMA fighter with only one top tier fights--fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Since the article has already been deleted by Deb (talk · contribs), there is no point in keeping this discussion open. If any editor disputes the speedy deletion, I'd suggest contacting the deleting administrator or opening an appeal at deletion review. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CMDportal

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

Unambiguous promotion and advertising. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the references supplied are inadequate. Deb (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Actually, I've just seen that there was a debate previously, so this could be speedy deleted. Deb (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for creating this page. Could you please clarify how this page is "Unambiguous promotion and advertising". This is a relevant financial data vendor and I modelled the page after Dealogic, which seems ok. I attempted to contact the user that deleted the original page, Wizardman and obtained no reply. I sincerely cannot see what is wrong with this page. I has plenty of sources, and the language is not promotional in any way. I understand that this is time consuming, byt if you could please be somewhat more specific about what is wrong with this page, it would go a long way to clarifying what is wrong. Manuel0506 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2014 (GMT)

Hi Deb, thank you for your comment. Could you please be more specific in relation to how the references are inadequate? They are provided by relevant participants in CMDportal's market segment. They are clearly more relevant than the one provided in the Dealogic article. I believe that this CMDportal page was checked in the Summer and was found to be appropriate. However, I am happy to make any changes as you may find necessary. Manuel0506 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2014 (GMT)
- I recommend you read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Deb (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. -It reads like a brochure. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortuna, thanks for your comment. So your issue with this article is to do with its writing style, not with its the sources? I believe that this form is the most neutral one, although I understand that it is not grand literature, but am happy to make changes if you have any suggestion as to a more acceptable style.Manuel0506 (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2014 (GMT)

No it means it is self-promotional. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for clarifying that. However, I'm terribly sorry for insisting, but I cannot see how this page is any different or more self-promotional than those of other relatively small companies in the same market, such as CarryQuote, NYSE Technologies, Dealogic, I-Net Bridge or IRESS, which are also on the list of Financial data vendor. The article describes the activities of the company and the sources highlight its relevance. It does not state that the company is good or bad, just the available facts about it, much in the same way as, or even more imparcially than, those other companies' pages. Once again, could you please be more specific about what you would like to see different? Thank you again and sorry for your trouble.Manuel0506 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2014 (GMT)
- I recommend you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Deb (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe give some Examples? I am also having difficulties finding these Problems in the page, thanks. Fischblubl (talk)08:54, 28 January 2014 (GMT)

Hi Deb, Thank you for your recommended readings. However, after having a look at them, I still am unaware of what I should change in the article. As far as I can tell it complies with the Neutral point of view information on the link posted. It provides as good research on the firm as is possible, is completely balanced, impartial and provides no aesthetic opinions and does not seem to suffer from "words to watch" for problems. Genuinely, I cannot see how the post fails to comply with those conditions. Regarding the Other stuff exists issues, I understand that analogy is an imperfect form of argument, but I was not saying that just because other companies have their pages CMDportal should too. My argument is that the CMDportal article is more neutral and as relevant or more than those others. My point was simply to highlight that Wikipedia has pages of companies that participate in this market, some of which actually no longer exist. Although it is not the market leader, this is clearly an important company, providing an important service in a market that is particularly opaque, whose relevance is highlighted by the diversity of the references used and by the salience of this field in the world economy. My point was also to highlight that amid the articles on wikipedia about this type of companies, the one about CMDportal is probably one of the most neutral. In light of these facts, and of how vague your comments have been, I would really appreciate if you could be so kind as to point to specific problems in the article. I understand that this will be time consuming for you but I think it would speed up the process quite a lot. Thank you very much once again. Best, Manuel0506 (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2014 (GMT)
- I've mentioned several times that the references are inadequate. As far as I can see, not a single one of those you quote mentions CMDportal, though most of them mention Capital Market Daily. So why do you think it is appropriate to use them here? Deb (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, Thank you for clarifying this. CMDportal and Capital Market Daily are basically the same. Indeed, if you access CMDportal's official website you will find at the bottom of the page the copyright as Capital Markets Daily. As the article says, "CMDportal is a part of Capital Market Daily". I believe this was added at the end of July 2013 after an editor (Spencer) pointed out the same issue regarding a previous draft of the post. I hope this addresses your concern. Otherwise, I am happy to make this fact more explicit, although I would appreciate it if you could suggest how, given that a note of this is already in the article. Manuel0506 (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2014 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.179.90 (talk)
- No, this doesn't help. You have given no reason for including references that don't refer to the subject of the article, which means that CMDportal's claim to notability remains unsupported. Why don't you just create an article on Capital Market Daily instead? Incidentally, references that merely say "uses information supplied by Capital Market Daily" or "according to Capital Market Daily" show only that the parent organisation produces data, not that they are a notable source of such data. Even for Capital Market Daily, I would expect better references. You allowed User:Wizardman 30 minutes to reply to your question, so I will allow you an hour to respond to this. No more prevarication, please. I'm going to speedy the article unless you can provide some sources. Deb (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deb, I allowed Wizardman considerably more than 30mins to get back to me with a reply to the comment I posted last friday and created this page again on Monday. Your comment about the distinction between Captial Market Daily and CMDportal shows a tremendous lack of understanding about how companies work. It is the same as having an issue with an article on BP, because the company's name is actualy British Petroleum. The article is about CMDportal because that is what the company is known as, how it markets itself. Clearly this was not a concern shared by Spencer and seems like an arbitrary point to pick on. The references include articles from several high-profile market participants and from mainstream media sources, which should make the notability of this company evident. I am not prevaricating and would appreciate that you show me the same politeness and civility that I have shown you. I do not believe that threatening me is a serious way of dealing with this issue. Your despotic attitude does a diservice to Wikipedia and I will report you if you delete this article for the reasons stated above, which are clearly not adequate. Manuel0506 (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.179.90 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin

I'm speedying this article for the reasons described above. Deb (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think Manuel0506s answer was Insufficient? Am I wrong in believing he answered in an hour? Fischblubl (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Amalthea 14:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Turner

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

Not only is the spelling of her name wrong but this article whether it be "Lyndsey Turner" "Lyndsey Turner (director)" or "Lyndsey Turner (theatre director)" has been deleted and recreated by the same sock puppet for at least 4 times this month LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luisa Zissman

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

I have doubts about the notability of the subject. First content contribution from Launchballer. This "retail entrepreneur" who achieved some modicum of notoriety on Big Brother. Well, her biography contains impressive biographical facts (sic) like "Zissman broke down after thinking she bungled a pitch in the final, and was then fired by Lord Sugar" and "She entered the house on Day 1 handcuffed to American boxer Evander Holyfield". But I ask: where's the biographical material?? All these "facts" are cited to wonderfully reliable sources" such as Daily Mail and Daily Mirror. Other cites are trivial mentions or write-ups of the program. Let there be no confusion between television and biography – Reality television is 80 percent television and 20 percent reality. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable for two events and thus passes WP:1EVENT.--Laun chba ller 13:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Launchballer - notable for 2 events, and has received a large amount of national coverage for both. Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- She may well have participated in two "reality programmes", the media coverage is directly show-related and often trivial. Anyhow, it seems to violate WP:NOT#NEWS. Most of the article is directly show-related, and there is precious little biographic material there. If we have some more of the latter that can be meaningfully sourced, then I am prepared to buy. Can someone clean it up? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has sufficient "modicum of notoriety" to be notable--Zymurgy (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if she'd only ever appeared on The Apprentice, this might be arguable, but by appearing on Celebrity Big Brother she's achieved a sufficient level of notability for us to have an article on her. Robofish (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - more than Z-list, though only just, her claim to notoriety is largely for appearing in two TV shows and not winning either of them (yet). A large chunk of media coverage was removed from the article by NorthBySouthBaranof which, being unrelated to her reality TV work, makes a case for meeting WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any guidelines that mention people who have been contestants on two reality shows? We've deleted articles of people who have only competed in one reality show, but are there any other articles of people who have competed in two, and do not have any other notability? She's not notable as a businesswoman, so it is her Apprentice and CBB participation that she is known for. Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly a widespread acceptance that reality TV contestants should be redirected to the article about the TV programme, unless they win or do something remarkable. Being prominently involved with two makes the situation less clear. I made my case above, though I don't think the other 'Keep' arguments above are strong. Sionk (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entirely per Launchballer. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 09:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges Are Born

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

Originally an expired PROD, which I turned into a redirect rather than deleting, before being reverted by the article creator. This topic has not been covered in any detail by independent, reliable sources. I would be happy to see it deleted but if not then it should be, at most, turned into a redirect. Giant Snowman 11:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please be more specific when you say reliable sources. What info do you think it will be reliable and compliant for you to acknowledge the article? Please state them and I shall provide them. User:andyar85 User talk:andyar85

Delete for lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. Andyar85, for information on what that means, do check out WP:RS. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will recreate the page with more complete info. I wrote to Biruitorul. I never wrote false info since I am the manager of the band, thus making me the right person to add correct info on this. YES there weren't lots of info, but deletion based on what ?!! I had seen lots of other articles in this manner. Further info I can add to the article, but it was already connected to the band's page so you can't state there weren't related articles and info on this.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyar85 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the manager of the band then you should NOT be creating/editing articles related to them, see WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Based on what you've just admitted I may have to review your other contributions/creation related to this band. Giant Snowman 16:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead Giant. I know what WP:NPOV and what Wikipedia stands for and that is only as an informative platform. This is what I did. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyar85 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if improved with reliable sources and notability can be established. I would given the man a break and the chance to improve the article, if possible. I think we can assume good faith here. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TransTales Entertainment

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

After some serious debate, I'm listing this page for deletion. I can't find anything to show that this company is ultimately notable enough for its own entry. The company won an award for their Mark of Uru ([6]) but I have to honestly ask how notable the award is when there's little to no coverage for this award or for TTE winning it. There are plenty of press releases out there and re-phrasing of an article by Africa Good News (who does have an editorial board but also solicits work from anyone who wants to submit a piece), but little else out there that actually gives in-depth coverage of the company or the award win. The notability of the award is also in question, as I'm unsure as to whether it can really give notability at all. It's pretty undeniable that it's not the type of award that would give absolute notability, meaning that we'd keep on that basis alone. I really don't think that this company passes WP:CORP at this point in time. I really did try to find sources, but they just don't seem to be out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Secret Princess. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A cursory read of the refs would give the impression of notability, however i read them a second time and agree with the nom. Theres nothing reliable here. Szzuk (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Do your research about TransTales Entertainment multiple award winning company and the biggest African animation company. VARIETY MAGAZINE 2010 http://variety.com/2010/digital/news/animator-toons-up-african-tales-1118029555/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrexMafia (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do what is right. This information is for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrexMafia (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I did find that article, but I can't find where that award is so notable that it'd merit a keep on that basis alone. There really isn't much out there for the company. Also, we don't keep articles because WP:ITSUSEFUL or anything that derives from that. I do think that you are a representative for the company or someone that is involved in its promotion, so your best bet at this point in time is to try to see if any of the news outlets such as Variety, Twitch Film, or any of the places we consider to be a RS would cover the company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VARIETY MAGAZINE 2010 http://variety.com/2010/digital/news/animator-toons-up-african-tales-1118029555/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.94.1 (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
African Tales http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdaMi62RT_M — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrexMafia (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You already posted that Variety article. We need more than that to show notability- we need a lot of coverage to show notability. The YouTube video is WP:PRIMARY and can't show notability. There are other issues with YT as a source, but this is pretty much unusable since it's from the company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The very brief mention in Variety and the YouTube video by the company itself are not enough to establish notability/pass wp:corp. A search for other sources comes up with nothing that would make it pass wp:corp. $Erebus Morgaine (Talk)$ 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blueprints for the Black Market. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Readyfuels

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

Does not meet WP:NSONGS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the albu8m, Blueprints for the Black Market. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 09:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Copa Catalunya

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

Non-notable instance of a four-team football tournament. Precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005–06 Copa Catalunya (2nd nomination). Stifle (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per reasoning at the related AFD, which fully applies here. Namely, this individual staging of this competition has not been covered in detail in reliable, third-party sources. Giant Snowman 11:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. – Pee Jay 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wait WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means that precedent is out the window. But WP:OTHERSTUFFDELETED is precedent? #FAIL :) Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is based on the principle that everything should be judged on its own merits. Barring something extraordinary happening in a particular iteration of a competition, which does not appear to be the case here, one season of a sporting competition tends to be as notable as another. There is no indication that the 2010–11 season has any merits or detriments that the 2005–06 season did not, meaning that the arguments presented for deleting that article are equally valid here. It is not because the article on the 2005–06 season was deleted that this one should be deleted, but simply that it should be deleted for the same reasons. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the very good arguments presented in the previous discussion. Mentoz (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - Two other seasons are up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Copa Catalunya. Let that one play out, before completing this one. (and I ask this, simply because I'd rather not spend the hour or two digging out a dozen references for this season, if that more recent and documentable one is deleted). Nfitz (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Maria Tome

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

Fails WP:NMMA with only 2 top tier fights, and the Shooto event he fought at was in Brazil and not Japan. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two top tier fights were losses. If at least one was a win the chance for another top tier would be high enough to allow a bit more time.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was just released from the UFC, so a third top tier fight isn't likely soon. Fails WP:NMMA, but article can be recreated if he gets a third top tier fight.Mdtemp (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rameshwar Dayal Dantare (Dantre)

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

New article for a man without sufficient notability who died two days ago, written like an obituary. Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MEMORIAL ColonelHenry (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Silaupura contacted me and asked for a little patience as he intends to improve the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was a politician who lost elections at least twice; Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, 1990 as independent candidate[7] and in Indian general election, 1991 as Janata Party candidate.[8] Some more searching might be required to find about this fellow. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails on primary notability guidelines for inclusion. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. Hitro talk 17:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to some failed attempts, he also won the 1972 MP Legislative Assembly elections as Samyukta Socialist Party's candidate thus passing WP:POLITICIAN.[9] §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To expand on what User:Dharmadhyaksha said, the term MLA indicates he was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, meaning a member of a state legislature. Per WP:POLITICIAN, "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are sufficiently notable for an article. The article Mehgaon (Vidhan Sabha constituency) lists this person as winning two elections, 1972 and 1977, and the subject article says he was "MLA from Mehgaon constituency during 1972–1980." The fact that the article needs a complete rewrite so that it is not an obituary, as well as sourcing, does not change the fact that the subject was notable. Neutron (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: User:Silaupura Dear friends: I need your help here. Now that participating members in debate are also pointing that Shri Rameshwar Dayal Dantre was a notable person and was a well known freedom fighter also; mistake is at my part where I do not know how to rewrite or improve this article to give it a professional look. Please give me some time. I am new to Wikipedia and its coding but I can learn very fast and want to contribute to wikipedia in my own capacity. http://www.linkedin.com/in/manojpachouri —Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Note to admin: After keeping, move it to Rameshwar Dayal Dantre. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: User:Silaupura Hi §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C}; as you suggested to move to Rameshwar Dayal Dantre but his sir name has been spelled as Dantre and Dantare interchangeably in websites. So I wanted to make sure that his page gets listed in Google when searched by any 'Dantre' or 'Dantare' sirname. Please keep this searching point in mind and I request you to keep the page name as Rameshwar Dayal Dantre (Dantare)

Also I have come to know that Shri Dantare Ji (Freedom Fighter) also particiapted in MISA imposed by the then prime minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi and went to jail for couple of months. I will get documented proofs (certificates) when I go to his constituency from Bangalore next week.

Silaupura (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep two variable spellings in the title. We will create a redirect at Rameshwar Dayal Dantare so this spelling also appears in the search. You can provide other information as and when you get it. No rush. I have cleaned the article for now. If you wish to add more info, do it along with a reliable source that provides the info. Also i have striked off your keep vote and you have already voted once. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Silaupura Thanks §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C}. I liked your idea. Please rename this page to Rameshwar Dayal Dantre and a redirect can be created at Rameshwar Dayal Dantare so this spelling also appears in the search. As you would have observed, I have already started adding more info like birth and early life.

--Silaupura (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - now since notability has been established. Jethwarp (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Editors and Moderators; I need your help to understand the verification process so that I can upload or send the death certificate or any other document in future. for proof of DoB, please refer to affidavit given to Election Commission of India on 24Nov2003 where his age was 74. By that calculation, his year of birth is 1929. http://eci.nic.in/archive/website_2/S12/10/Rameswer/Rameswer_SC1.html

I request you to not ask proofs for every small thing like schooling and childhood things. I am trying to write about a freedom fighter and social worker in 1930s when everything was not available on internet like now. If proofs are required for each and every of his work, I fear that his entire social work of more than 60 years work will not be able to come in public domain. He became Surpanch of Konhar village at age of 23 and continued social work till he died on 24th Jan 2014. Kindly have patience with me and before deleting something, ask me for proofs if required. Silaupura (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @ Silaupura Although AfD is not the forum to discuss this, I am forced to comment here bco'z u r bringing it here. Please get aware of Wiki guidelines on creating an article. If you insist of adding unreferrenced and peacock lines, people may change their vote. Better start discussion on article talk page. Jethwarp (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. apparently the feeling is that it's sufficiently notable , so I withdraw the AfD DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wavii

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

small start up with one application, which failed. The article references consist entirely of routine announcements.

accepted at AfC ,like so many similar articles, all written exactly the same. DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Being small, a start up, having one application, being written like other articles (fixable), or failing are not criteria for deletion (and Wavii was acquired, it didn't fail). The news that Wavii was acquired by Google for $300M was not routine, it was news, and it was covered across a broad spectrum of media. Besides tech blogs like TechCrunch, and the WSJ, the story was covered by PC Magazine, The Telegraph, the Oakland Tribune, and the AP. There are sufficient articles where Wavii is the sole subject to meet WP:COMPANY. Merging Wavii into Google wouldn't be a bad thing, except that the article Google is already a pretty large, and the other products section is already quite full of more well known Google products like Google Translate. A worthwhile project would be to create a main article for Category:Discontinued Google acquisitions so that these various companies/products/technologies could all be described in a coherent narrative, and then some of them, perhaps including Wavii, could be redirected into that new article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that idea--would you like to do it? DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But, I can't promise I can get to it this year. Or next. I have an ever-growing stack of projects I'm waiting to get to and this will have to go to the back of the line. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wavii had substantive coverage before being bought [10][11][12][13][14], well in excess of your average start-up and independently of the acquisition event. Merging everything from Category:Discontinued Google acquisitions in a single page sounds remotely plausible assuming the 22 articles only have 1-2 paragraphs each (I didn't check if that holds), but the proposal is outside the scope of this AfD. By the way, a start-up being bought counts as "grade B" success, not failure. That Google bought them to kill them is another matter, but irrelevant for this discussion per WP:NTEMP. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What this page currently lacks is more detailed coverage of their [former] product, but that's not because sources about that can't be found. The sources I listed above are mostly about that actually. I suspect that the WP:SPA who wrote the wiki article is connected to some VC because he listed every single one of those involved in financing (see last paragraph), but hardly wrote anything about their product. I guess it was just a black box to cash in for him/them... Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH, and per WP:NTEMP. Some source examples include:

The Wall Street Journal (newsblog)
The New York Times (newsblog)
Wired magazine
Business Insider (article published in The Telegraph)
Techcrunch
Techcrunch
PC Magazine

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mascom Top 8 Cup

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

Does not meet WP:GNG ColonelHenry (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So adding news coverage will make it meet WP:GNG? Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - national cup competition, seems notable, decent coverage and I'm confident more is out there - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GS, has received coverage in national media. Agree improvement is the way forward here, not deletion. Fenix down (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – article has references and appears to meet GNG. C 679 09:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Article also moved to Serbian parliamentary election, 2014 (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 19:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next Serbian parliamentary election

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

This article doesn't say anything. And predictions of the future aren't what wikipedia does (per: WP:NOT/WP:CRYSTALBALL) ColonelHenry (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per comments below and work by User:Neutron.[15]--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep We have articles on future elections for most countries on the planet - see for example Category:2015 elections, Category:2016 elections and most of the articles in Category:2014 elections. WP:CRYSTAL has been misinterpreted - if there is evidence in reliable sources that an event will occur, then there is no problem with writing an article about it. Number 5 7 07:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL which states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
obvious merge to elections in Serbia Hard to choose between WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL on this one. "Next" gets dated and these "next" elections, if not accelerated, are two years off. Also, the articles in the categories mentioned are not beyond challenge. At any rate there's nothing in this which shouldn't already be being said in the main article, if at all. Mangoe (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep According to all media reports and party announcements, early parliamentary election in Serbia will be held on March 16. Not only this article should be keep, but it also should be renamed to Serbian parliamentary election, 2014. --Sundostund (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, there are a lot of calls for early elections, but as yet they have not been officially called. Number 57 12:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you, definitely. It is not the same to have calls for early elections, and officially called elections. But, according to all facts, this early elections will be officially called on January 29 and held on March 16. Even if this article is deleted, it will need to be rewritten just a few days later as Serbian parliamentary election, 2014. --Sundostund (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Strongest possible response Well, not really, but it's blinkin' obvious that if elections are called for this year, we'll be writing the article you describe. And if not, then there's no article to write at all. This is precisely why we have the two guidelines I cited. Mangoe (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Strongest possible link to Serb Ruling Parties Call for Early Elections on March 16 (Bloomberg) and Largest Party in Serbian Government Calls for Elections (Wall Street Journal). No such user (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just updated the article, including today's announcement by the incumbent prime minister that he is joining in the call for early elections. Since the decision to have an election on March 16 apparently needs to be made by the end of January, it seems likely that the outcome will be known before the date this AfD is eligible to be closed. If next Monday arrives and no election has been called, this article should be deleted but some of the contents should be merged into the article on the current government (if there is one.) If an election is called, this AfD should be closed and the article moved to Serbian parliamentary election, 2014. Neutron (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should it be deleted? We have Next Danish general election, Next United Kingdom general election etc? Number 5 7 18:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on those either, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument here. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS though. If we have future election articles for almost every country, it's perfectly reasonable to say that there is no reason why the Serbian one should be singled out for deletion. You earlier cited WP:CRYSTAL as a reason for deleting the article, yet the guideline states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". A national election in Serbia is clearly notable, and barring some freak return to dictatorship, it's going to happen. Number 5 7 20:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consistency is a good thing, and I think "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is way overused in AfD discussions, but that doesn't mean the "Next ... election" titles are good ones. However, it will probably not be necessary to decide that issue for this article, as the steps necessary to schedule an election in March seem to be proceeding along quickly. To the editor who closes this, although I know we don't "count votes" here, I just want to make clear that my "Comment" should not be "counted" as a "Delete". Neutron (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title is in its current form because of Wikipedia:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums, which specifies that if a future election's date is unknown (not all countries have fixed-term legislatures), then it is to use the prefix "next". Number 5 7 22:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, guys, its official now - Serbia's president calls parliamentary election for March 16 (Reuters) and Serbian president dissolves parliament, calls early election for March 16 (Fox News). --Sundostund (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with these sources. I think it is time to move the article, but Wikipedia:Guide to deletion suggests that this should not occur while the AfD is still pending. Additionally, since Serbian parliamentary election, 2014 already exists as a redirect, I believe it would take an administrator to move the article to that location, and I am not one of those. User:ColonelHenry, would it be possible for you to withdraw this nomination so the article can be moved by an admin? Neutron (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, withdrawn as stated above, per this request.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ok, so now what is the best way to get an admin's attention to close this AfD as "Withdrawn", and more importantly, to move the article to Serbian parliamentary election, 2014 over the redirect? Should it be posted on WP:AN? Somewhere else? Neutron (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article. It didn't take admin powers. Number 5 7 23:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have "only" been an editor for eight years, maybe eventually I will learn something about how this place works. The next issue is the AfD tag, which says it is not supposed to be removed until the AfD is closed. This AfD has been "withdrawn", but someone still has to come along and "close" it, right? Neutron (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: seriously, is this even a discussion? Seriously guys? Seriously? Even if a date is not set there should be a page. Case in point: [16] the next canadian elections, or [17] the next US elections, and countless others. The point of arguing is it 2014 or not is a completely missed point as there are going to be elections in the future, hence "next" elections. Oh, here, check this out too, about Norway [18]. (Lilicneiu (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf Söderberg

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

Looks like a vanity piece, editor has only contributed to this article[19], it does not meet WP:GNG, and has WP:BLP/WP:RS problems. ColonelHenry (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. ProtossPylon 22:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has been deleted several times on the Swedish Wikipedia - initially as non-notable, then as a re-creation. I do find lots of mentions online in Swedish, but a lot appear to be negative about Bringwell. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not proved by the given sources. There are several issues with the article. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harvester (video game)

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

Unreferenced, and if I believe what was written here: "Harvester is an old video game and most of the information you can find about it is misleading or false. The only reliable and active source for the information is Harvester fan page on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/lodge.level.4). The creator of the fan page has interviewed the people who made Harvester (there's plenty of interviews on the fan page) and the people who made Harvester have also participated in building the fan page." - there is no reliable sourcing out there. I question whether this is notable enough for a Wikipedia article by itself. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of the coverage for this initially came up as being pretty much unusable as a reliable source (see [20], [21], [22] for examples), but I am finding some stuff via HighBeam. I need someone with a HB account to verify some of the contents, as I'm finding enough in the previews to suggest that things such as this article and this one contain reviews of the game. I'm also finding some coverage in other areas, but so far it's coming in at just a trickle. I think that a lot of the coverage has been lost due to it being pre-Internet but I'm seeing enough to where I still have some hopes that there's more coverage that can be found. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't initially think that the game was on Metacritic, but it appears to not only be on there but to also have 8 reviews. That's enough to pass notability guidelines at this point in time. I've removed all of the unsourced and non-neutral prose. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Had my doubts at first, but this game is still being written about many years later due to its being bad and/or its excessive horror. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources from WP:VG/RS, such as GameSpot review, CGM review or Just Adventure review. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fan interviews with the game's staff generally do little for notability but can still be used to build the article's content if notability is otherwise established, and with Hellknowz sources above (and the others) it appears the game is notable. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:36, 27 January 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) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As it stands there seem to be sufficient web-based RSes to met GNG, but... I also wanted to note that I reject the nom's baseline argument that because online information on it is scant or unreliable, therefore there is no reliable sourcing out there. I also disagree with Tokyogirl79's suggestion that pre-Internet sourcing is "lost". The WP:VG Reference Library currently provides access to at least one paper-based article from PC Gamer (US version). I'll check through the magazines I have later tonight, and I'm certain more articles could be dug up on the game if we forget the silly idea that the internet is the first, last, and only place to look for source articles. -Thibbs (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean "lost" in that other sources could never be found. Just "lost" in the way that many pre-Internet paper sources tend to never get logged anywhere and in many cases require at least a few hours of digging through magazines, books, and the like. It's essentially trying to find the needle in the proverbial haystack, as sometimes you only have the year of release to go by- which is never a guarantee that the year of release will be the only time the game is mentioned or released. It's quite common and was common even back then, for games to fly solidly under the radar for the most part and only get mentioned a while after they first hit the shelves. As far as the internet as the "first, last, and only place to look for source articles", you've got to remember that not all of us have access to huge piles of video game magazines or similarly themed physical research materials. I do have a small pile of gaming magazines from the days of yore, but nothing that would really help out in this particular instance. In any case, I did find a good 7-8 sources, one of which was the original PC Gamer review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry if I misunderstood you. I've seen plenty of examples of people giving up after a quick Google search and then AfD'ing articles on games from the 90s. The nom's comments really make it sound like the internet is only possible source for articles. Anyway I found a review of the game in Computer Games Magazine but that's all I could get from my personal collection since I have a focus on console games. The CGM article is reprinted here incidentally. -Thibbs (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are attributing the argument that there is scant online information to me - the argument comes from User_talk:XLinkBot#Harvester_.28video_game.29 (diff). I did however take that remark at face value and did not look much further than a quick Google search where I did not see much obvious and strong coming up. The existence of a fan-page does show some notability (if there are fans ..), but that alone is certainly and by far not enough. I'm glad to see there are non-online references (for those who know me, I am arguing often that a reference does not even need a link to an online source, a plain text reference mention is enough, the rest (the direct link) is plain convenience and not necessary - I would be the last to reject a paper source that does really not have a (legal) online copy available). I'll leave this discussion to an independent (WP:SNOW?) close, which I think is now obvious. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear this then, and disappointed in User_talk:XLinkBot#Harvester_.28video_game.29. I'd briefly quibble that the fan-pages can't show notability unless they themselves are reliable sources since Notability on Wikipedia is defined by significant coverage in multiple independent/third-party RSes. But anyway thanks for your attitude toward offline sources. -Thibbs (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is the 'independent/third-party RSes' .. fan-sites are almost by definition not independent (they are almost by definition 'propaganda' for the subject), and only third-party when that term is very broadly construed. And I think that that remark of me is completely in line with WP:V and how it should be - it is about being able to verify, it does not mean that you yourself have to be able to do it there, on the spot, without any form of effort or even have to ask someone else. 'PC Magazine, first issue of 1976, page 3' is totally sufficient (as long as it is properly attributing the statement on Wikipedia), as is 'Science, 2014, issue 1, page 1' (even if having direct external links to the document and names of authors and other metadata is better ..). But here, I only had a fanpage on facebook (and we know that anyone can make a facebook page) .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no question about the citation issue. The addition of a URL is certainly not required any more at Wikipedia than it is in academic papers. It's a courtesy to readers and nothing more. And I agree that fan pages are essentially never independent/third-party RSes, though it's been established that individual fan-forum posts can be used as WP:SPSes on the topic of themselves if the poster is a first-party source, and facebook interviews would probably also fall into this category as well. -Thibbs (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not for things that are "trying to gain recognition" - it only covers things that are already notable, i.e. have already gained recognition from independent sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World of Dogs

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

I came across this via a speedy, which was declined by another admin before I had the chance to, as it wasn't unambiguously promotional. There is still a problem with notability, as I can't find anything to show that this movie meets notability guidelines for films. I wish the director well, but this just doesn't seem to pass GNG for future or released movies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom, WP:NOTFILM, WP:NFF. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete no evidence of notability which would outweigh WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NFF. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concurring with above, I also note that this film/documentary is nothing different than any other "$20 Camera" Film Director could make. No objections to Userfication/Articles for Creation as outcomes from this discussion to give the author of the article time to improve and make a case for why the article should be in mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AFC should be used as a holding tank for things that have no reason to remain.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how I didn't say holding tank. I see potential in this, and considering the page was created as the author's first (and only so far) edit to Wikipedia I think putting it in a place to give them guidance (like AFC) is what we should all strive for, unless you're just out to bite the newbies outright... Hasteur (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC would probably be better since not only would they have more ability to get guidance from others, but if they decide to abandon the piece and never edit again, it'd end up getting deleted after 7 months to a year of no edits. (Supposed to be 7 months, but usually ends up being longer of a wait.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually 6 months that is authorized by the CSD, but the bot can nominate for deletion at 7 months. The bot is a bit backed up right now and is still working through it's first pass. I think at this point we're at 9 months stale, so we're making progress, it'll just take a little bit longer before the bot starts nominating the 7 month stale articles. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys don't even give anything a chance. This could be an important cinematic art piece that is trying to gain recognition. Why can't any of you lay off and cut some slack for the director? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockyourdoors (talk • contribs) 23:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be an important cinematic art piece that is trying to gain recognition. WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:NOTPROMO. Hasteur (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prince George of Cambridge

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

I am sure many will say keep, but from a completely objective standpoint this is a non-notable 6 month old baby from a non-notable family whom society has just so happened to have been conditioned into believing are in some way different from "the rest of us". Since he currently holds no constitutional office, and there is a chance that Britain will have become a Republic by the time his turn comes around (it's just a matter of time) I would vote delete. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one is notable unless sources tell us they are. This infant hasn't done anything to earn his notability, true, but one could argue neither has Justin Bieber. We kept this article when the subject was a fetus without name or title. I'm sure we'll keep it now. Jonathunder (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia policy, the subject is notable since it has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The nominator's "completely objective standpoint" is in fact a completely subjective standpoint as it ignores Wikipedia criteria. Helen Online 06:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Obviously passes WP:GNG, and the nomination appears to be based on the nominator's opinion of who should be notable than on any part of Wikipedia editing policy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the Wikipedia policy this person is notable. --Noel baran (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given above by "Keepers". Qexigator (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. No valid reason for nomination given and the subject passes WP:GNG by a long way, as do the rest of his family. The nomination appears to be based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT, using the phrases "non-notable family" and "become a Republic" makes this nomination appear to be based upon the politics of the nominator, rather than the content or notability of the subject.Martin451 09:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 09:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Martin451 09:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Third in line to the British throne. Filer's comment about a non-notable family cannot be taken seriously. Iselilja (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note previous AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Martin451 09:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is an excellent example of why WP:NOTINHERITED is utter bollocks and shouldn't be quoted as WP:POLICY when it's WP:NOTPOLICY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Will one day be head of state of one of the world's major countries. And censure this POV-pushing nominator. Things like this have no place on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The nominator's rationale is amusingly ridiculous, though. Surtsicna (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:NPOV given the obvious reasons stated by others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we can automatically assume this child will one day become Head of State. Potentially every child alive in Britain today might grow up to become President of the United Kingdom. Constitutional systems do change, especially arbitrary hereditary elitist ones, and giving coverage to this infant just adds fuel to the fire and makes his eventual succession a more likely self-fulfilling prophecy. In this example the subject is not currently aware of his own "notability" and indeed may only become aware of it by reading his wikipedia entry, which kind of defeats the purpose of notability before inclusion. I would keep him out of the Encyclopedia at least until he is of age to begin carrying out official royal engagements Flaming Ferrari (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above discloses a muddled lack of logic and reason. Neither "we" nor members of the royal family, the government or the general public automatically assume this child will one day become Head of State; the possibility that every child alive in Britain today might grow up to become President of the United Kingdom is impossible under the current constitution and would be irrelevant, even if a prospect of a change in the constitution were under discussion in parliament or actually provided for by statute; the monarchy has endured from the 11th century, from England to the union with Scotland and later with Ireland to become the UK, whether or not npov could accept letting it be characterised in a banal cliche' such as arbitrary hereditary elitist, while other regimes such as of France, Germany, Italy, and most other countries, have been and gone in the period after the UK Act of Settlement; the remark that the subject is not currently aware of his own "notability" has no relevance whatever. Notability such as this is not dependent on some prospective change in a country's constitution, whether conjectural (as here) or about to happen by due process of law. The UK monarchy as such is notable, its manner of constitutional succession is notable, the immediate line of succession is notable, and that certainly includes the third in line, irrespective of age. Qexigator (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get this straight, you basically don't think he should have an article because you personally don't believe (or don't like to believe) that a monarchy that has survived over 1,000 years will continue to survive another two or three generations and think that giving him an article goes against your own republican views and strengthens the monarchist cause? That, quite frankly, is one of the most ridiculous examples of POV I've ever seen on Wikipedia! While you're at it, maybe you would like to nominate for deletion the articles on every single member of a royal family who has not actually been head of state? Or every single first lady or other spouse or child of an elected head of state? We've got articles on thousands of them. Why? Because they're newsworthy and therefore notable. And if you can't see the difference between someone who might grow up to be elected to be a head of state and someone who is born to be head of state and who, barring disasters or an unbelievably unlikely change in the constitution of the United Kingdom, undoubtedly will be, then, well, words fail me... -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you maybe noticed the irony of having a "President of the United Kingdom"? ;) -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject has received massive coverage, and far passes the notability guidelines. Mat ty.007 16:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worst. Nomination. EVER. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowboarding at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Qualification

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

Per WP:NOT (esp. WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE).

Per WP:MERGE, this shouldn't be a standalone article, and should be merged as a section of a larger comprehensive article that is directly about 2014 Olympic snowboarding. ColonelHenry (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All sports with rather long qualifications are split into individual pages (ie almost all the sports). This has happened in the summer games, winter games. Evidently the nominator is not knowledgeable about the subject to do further research before nominating. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's standard practice to have seperate articles for Olympic qualifiying events (I guess due to WP:SIZE). See Category:Qualification for the 2014 Winter Olympics for more. They all meet notability guidelines too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's too long to just merge with the snowboarding article, especially once the latter grows due to more detail being added. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Korbut

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

WP:GNG. ColonelHenry (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GNG? She fails this? She only just meets this? C'mon, you know better than that. Her bio states she has won the World Junior Chess Championship and the Russian women's championship, so she should meet the notabilty standards of WP:ANYBIO. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Russian 2006 champ and world championship competitor - either would be enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Why is this nominated for deletion? MrsHudson (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was listed in Wikiproject Chess's most wanted articles before it was created. PatGallacher (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable within the context of the chess world. Not many women hold the full International Master title. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all arguments given above. Cobblet (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some very distinguished achievements. Brittle heaven (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a non-chess person, I (never-the-less) find this person of interest. I also hope her activities can be updated in the article. What has she done since 2008? Kdammers (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Lemieux (archivist)

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

Not convinced that an "audiovisual archivist" constitues notability Flaming Ferrari (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability on Wikipedia, for a person, is not based on their occupation, or on the reason that they are known. It's based on the general notability guideline, and on the notability criteria for people. Quoting the first, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Based on the references currently in the article, David Lemieux is a notable subject, and so the article should be kept. — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no reason that a leading expert on an important cult(ural) institution like The Dead couldn't be notable; we have lots of articles about Beatles experts too. The sources provided (and others seen at Google and GBooks searches) make it evident that Lemieux is notable. The article could be improved by more in-line sourcing, but hey, there's no deadline, man. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is better supported through references than many others not being considered for deletion. Additionally, his extensive work concerning the Grateful Dead make it clear is "specialty" is itself worthy of note according to the notability criteria for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichMartinez (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Steffen (computer scientist)

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

Article written by a one-edit brand new editor, Bdfis. Given the pattern, I wonder if the user is the subject of the article.

Does not meet the notability guidelines for professors/academics. ColonelHenry (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His Google Scholar profile (linked under EL in the article) shows several articles cited hundreds of times each, a total of almost 9000 citations, and an h-index of 47. Easy pass of WP:PROF#1. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As editor-in-chief of a major international journal (International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer he also passes PROF#8. --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple passes of WP:PROF criteria demonstrated by Randykitty. In addition, although I'm not entirely sure how the German system works in this regard, his chair seems to be one step higher than a normal full professor position (it's a position he earned four years after becoming full professor but I can't tell whether that was a lateral move or step up) so may pass WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this entry, Barry Floyd (Professor of Information Systems and Management, Cal Poly - SLO). Bernhard Steffen meets the notability criteria for academics on points 5, 6 and 8. The 'orphan' issue is resolved through an update I made today on the page [30] (the previous version of the page pointed to a different Bernhard Steffen, a soccer player in the '60s). In the German system there are higher ranks than a normal full professor (called "weitere Rufe") though the academic title remains the same. Bernhard Steffen is generally considered 2 levels higher than a full professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdfis (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You should not feel obligated to reveal your identity here (see WP:PRIVACY) but thanks for clearing up the nominator's concern over a potential COI. And welcome to Wikipedia; I hope you continue finding worthy subjects such as this one to add to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 plus #8 and probably #5. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the Philip Bujak page - which you seem to have taken an interest in. I note that he has been sentenced to jail for fraud (quite a significant sum of money). It is mentioned right at the end of the article - but I can't help thinking it should be higher up as it is rather headline news. I can't do it as I'm a former pupil of his! It actually makes the article about Bujak more interesting/relevant. best Mark Butcher 178.250.212.208 (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Bujak

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

A long rambling and admittedly heavily referenced article, with many unnecessary details, but ultimately the subject is the Chief Executive of a charity, and I am not convinced he is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly seems to be pretty notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources in the article are mostly fairly weak (many by the subject or quoting him briefly rather than going into detail about him), but the WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE deletion rationale is also weak. I think his high position in the UK Montessori movement should be enough for WP:GNG but would be more convinced if I could find more high-profile press coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)
Keep. Agree that it passes WP:GNG. Philip Bujak has also been quoted/referenced to in a number of national newspapers and trade press. He seems to be a popular commentator on the Early Years sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintage-academic (talk • contribs) 11:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Vintage-academic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in other sources, Passes WP:GNG Grd93 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiuma Kunioku

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Two top tier fights about 4 years ago but both were losses. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Clearly meets WP:MMANOT I miscounted top tier fights (see below).Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NMMA with 3 top tier World Victory Road Sengoku fights. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I counted only two but that was because of how it was named in the table with no accompanying text. This should be a Keep and I modified the table.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isnt this like the third time you have made a mistake in nominations because you failed to count the correct amount of top tier fights? Maybe instead of mindlessly nominating articles for deletion you should take a closer look, it probably takes less time for you to thoroughly skim through said fight records to determine the amount of top tier fights than it did for you to nominate the articles for deletion....just my 2 cents. Sepulwiki (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Porter

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

CEO of a minor soccer team, has also worked as a sports reporter but unsure if subject meets notability guidelines on this basis Flaming Ferrari (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a minor football CEO is not something that makes one inherently notable by WP:NFOOTY standards and there is no indication of any significant coverage / achievements that would pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no indication that this person meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adilson Lima

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Other championship claims don't meet notability even if sourced. The article relies only on a website associated with the subject. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails WP:NMMA and I don't think the other claims are enough to show notability (even if sources are added).Mdtemp (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William John Hutchins

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

I am not an expert on this topic but subject appears non-notable with only 4 publications on record Flaming Ferrari (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator misunderstands the four publications listed in the article: they are a selection of his highest impact publications (as is appropriate for our articles), not a complete listing of his publications (very seldom appropriate). A full list of his publications can be found here. In any case he clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 with Google scholar citation counts of 784, 454, etc (note the second and third GS hits are the same publication), and likely passes some other WP:PROF criteria as well. He has been president of both the European Association for Machine Translation (1995–2004) and the International Association for Machine Translation (1999–2001), which gave him their Award of Honour in 2001. He was also the founding editor-in-chief of MT News International, the Newsletter of the International Association for Machine Translation, but I'm not sure that's an important enough journal to count for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. I recommend that the subject revise his web site, which is aesthetically hideous. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep although someone who makes a website that hurts my eyes as badly as this one deserves otherwise... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Mendy

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

Non-notable founder of a non-notable company currently also up at AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prowl (application). Every source in this article is a selfie. There's nothing in the newspapers about the fellow, let alone more substantive reliable sources. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extreme WP:PROMOTIONAL BlueSalix (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is possibly the most promotional and worst-cited biography I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Even if this person were notable, the article would have be rewritten. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per NinjaRobotPirate and BlueSalix. Wow. I couldn't find any independent source on this guy. ~KvnG 17:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Noble

AfDs for this article:

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

previously deleted, not notable Welcometomyass (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article tries to inflate an inexperienced 20 year old. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Running in some local elections does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the sources provided are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, I have discounted keep arguments relying on notability of students. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix East Aviation, Inc.

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

Lack of any reason to think this company is notable, unless perhaps there is a consensus that I'm not aware of that all similar schools are presumed notable unless proven otherwise. Note that the proper location for an article about this company, Phoenix East Aviation, was deleted multiple times in 2008 and is currently "create protected". If this page survives AFD, I am requesting that the closing administrator MOVE it. If it closes as "delete" I am requesting that the closing administrator do some magic so both this page's delete log and Phoenix East Aviation's delete log show "deleted per AFD" or something similar, so re-creations can be speedily-deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG, esp. WP:CORP, looks like a vanity piece. Based on previous deletions, this should have been filed as a candidate for speedy deletion under criteria G4 (it was previously deleted under G11 by Jimfbleak--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not this time, "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". However, the deletionist side of me knows about G11 is the reason I bypassed PROD and went straight for AFD. The inclusionist side of me knows that I could very well be wrong and AFD is likely to get more attention - and therefore more people who know things like "are flight schools generally considered notable" - than a PROD would. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete flight schools are not really notable and nothing to indicate this is not the same as thousands of other flying clubs (also note G4 doesnt apply as it is nothing like the deleted article which at least had some content). MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This aviation school has produced some notable pilots and a footballer named Harald Brattbakk has taken pilot training from this aviation school so I guess it has some weightage to keep its page on wikipedia. Kicker911 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A business is not notable because someone notable was once one of their customers. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phoenix east aviation is a notable institute http://www.crunchbase.com/company/phoenix-east-aviation and also mentioned in other articles Watsonmickey (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The web cite you mention consists largely of content written by that company. Therefore, it contributes nothing to determining if the company meets WP:Notability or not. The phrase "Phoenix East Aviation" is used in 5 other articles as of this writing. None of those uses, either individually or in combination, do much to show that this company meets WP:Notability. Independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage are needed to show that a company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As a side-note, several other aviation and career-education schools listed in those articles need to be assessed for notability.. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of media coverage to PEA, from sites which are independent of the subject which can be easily found on any search engine. Few among them to mention are:
http://www.pilotcareernews.com/flight-training-in-the-usa/

http://www.nycaviation.com/tag/phoenix-east-aviation/

http://www.diamondaircraft.com/news/news-article.php?id=115

http://generalaviationnews.com/2010/11/21/phoenix-east-aviation-orders-da42-ng/

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-02-17/news/os-plane-crash-volusia-county-20110216_1_flight-instructor-phoenix-east-aviation-plane-crash

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=0133d9e7-f4a0-4bba-8a1f-f230e105ee2f

http://halldale.com/news/airline/phoenix-east-aviation-celebrates-40-years#.Uu2eBz28AtM

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Watsonmickey (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are totally unsuitable for determining notability:
pilotcareernews: written by company employee.

nycaviation (see also http://www.nycaviation.com/2011/02/flight-instructor-and-student-presumed-dead-after-plane-crash-off-florida-coast/ ) "mere mention."

diamondaircraft: Press release of a company that has PEA as a client.

orlandosentinel: "mere mention." Duplicates coverage of nycaviation link.

aero-news: Practically a verbatim copy of diamondaircraft link.

Two of these MIGHT be useful in determining notability depending on the journalistic independence and editing standards of the author and publisher:
generalaviationnews

halldale

However, these two links taken together do not provide anywhere near the significant coverage needed to demonstrate that this company meets WP:Notability. Even if they did, it is unclear if they can be considered independent, reliable sources for the purposes of demonstrating WP:Notability.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check this link: http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20120924/business/309219938?tc=ar#gsc.tab=0

you may find some notability about PEA here.Watsonmickey (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is better than the ones above but I would ask you to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience. In general, local news outlets like this and, for that matter, industry publications like the "halldale" link you provided earlier, count less than a national general-purpose news outlet with a wide distribution. The news-journalonline story is also weakened by its reliance on statements by company officials - it comes across as a "re-written press release" rather than as "hard news." If this identical article had appeared in Time (magazine) it would carry a lot more weight. What you can do to demonstrate that this company meets WP:Notability is to find several articles like this that cover different aspects of the company. At least a couple of these need to be from non-local, non-industry sources such as Time Magazine. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment training individuals who later become notable doesnt make the flying school notable, notability is not inherited by association. Nearly every flying school can probably claim they trained somebody of note but that doesnt make them notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, while the sources provide above make that a "barely" I don't see it passing the bar. Notability is not inherited by having Wikinotable graduates. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A famous astronaut who has walked on moon Edgar Mitchell has attended PEA training http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/105862522?q&versionId=119291866. I guess this information should be added to PEA's page to improve its notability.Blueitalianscooter (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueitalianscooter:As someone else said, notability is not inherited. However, schools and organizations which many notable people are associated with may be more likely to have received significant coverage from independent, reliable sources than they would have otherwise received. Such coverage may center around the astronaut having attended this school, but it must be significant and from independent, reliable sources. It is this coverage, not the fact that they are associated with notable people, that demonstrates that the topic is notable. By way of comparison, is this astronaut's elementary school, high school band, etc. considered notable merely because he is an alum of that school and that band? No. If that school and that band are "notable" it is because they have received the necessary coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Commissioned (gospel group). JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maxx Frank

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

Couldn't establish that he is notable, independent of Commissioned (gospel group). Boleyn (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commissioned (gospel group). He has written a fair bit, http://www.allmusic.com/artist/maxx-frank-mn0000396345, but I don't see any RS to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Technical Sciences University

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

This University does not even exist yet. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have many article of future dated events, films & stuff and universities are notable on their own. Then why delete? Also the AfD came up quite quick, just on the next day. (And sorry to have moved the article while it was under discussion here.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this project has received attention from national mainstream media, thus notable. --Soman (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not Notable.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TNI articles are passing references within 2 days of each other, fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not exist yet. No prejudice to recreate when confirmed as operational. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questioned you both in advance. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jones (Access Software)

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

No great claim of notability. Perhaps redirect to Indie Built. Bazonka (talk) 19:56, 11 January 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) 02:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article definitely needs work, but as both the lead designer and the face of the Tex Murphy games, he should meet WP:CREATIVE. And aside from various gaming sources, it seems he's been featured in mainstream newspaper coverage as well: [31][32]. ISTR Under a Killing Moon making a fairly big splash back in the day, so it should be possible to find sources from that time as well, like this Compute! article. Kolbasz (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Chalangov

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

Retired MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA. He lost both his top tier fights and the article shows no significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrício Monteiro

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Foupa-Pokam

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

MMA fighter that doesn't meet WP:NMMA. He has two top tier fights, both losses, and hasn't had a top tier fight in 5 years. Assuming he'll get a third one is both unlikely and WP:CRYSTALBALL. If he gets that third fight the article can be recreated. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denniston Sutherland

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

MMA fighter who has no top tier fights, thus failing WP:NMMA. Winning a second tier championship does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Cantave

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. I can't find any significant coverage (or even any mentions) of this person in google news or google books. Search for "Vanessa Cantave" brings back only ~ 5000 hits. SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the rationale provide by User:SarahStierch does not appear to have become less valid in the last month. VQuakr (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my !vote in the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Cantave. Upon a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 09:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liao Linkun

(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 on the grounds that he has appeared in the Chinese FA Cup. However, given that the appearance was a against a lower division club, it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if lower division club is in fully professional league, it does confer notability. The team in question is in China League One which is fully professional. There's various dicussion talking about the payrolls, and fulltime status of players in the league, and crowd sizes (average about 4,000 per game) [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Other sources indicate that League Two is not fully professional. [39] Nfitz (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources actually confirm what you're saying. The article in the Manawatu Standard focuses on one player, while one from goal.com (via FourFourTwo) focuses on a single club, while saying nothing definitive regarding the league as a whole. Transfermarkt, and Wordpress are not reliable. The article from What's on Tanjin? describes the league merely as professional, and not fully pro. The table of average attendances says nothing about professionalism whatsoever. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles make it clear that the line between professional and semi-pro is between League One and League Two. I searched high and low for any evidence that League One isn't fully professional, and there's nothing. I did same for League Two, and it took about 30 seconds to find stuff. The leagues own documents say similar [40] [41] - though such sources should be used with caution as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Nfitz (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football. No indication of GNG pass based on any other activities within or outside football. @Nfitz: - have a look in the deletion archive for 2013, I can't remember where it was but there was a similar discussion where sources were provided to assert China League 1 as FPL. I think there is sufficient to debate this and consider adding to the PFL list, but this is not the place to do it. Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Animaniacs characters. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Skullhead

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an extremely minor segment of a cartoon that has no real relevance outside of the brief description in List of Animaniacs characters. The current sources are trivial mentions of the character that do not provide actual significant coverage to fit WP:N. They are each one sentence mentions being given too much weight, and there is no actual in-depth discussion of the character to establish actual notability. TTN (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Animaniacs characters. Very minor character in the show, with little impact on other cartoons or the real world. Definitely not like Pinky and the Brain or the Warners. Them From Space 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A mention in the LA Times [42] and secondary sources such as IGN [43] show notability to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those sources are one line passing mentions. How is that significant coverage? Them From Space 01:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Themfromspace. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ged UK 13:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saujac air crash

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

Military crashes usually not notable - operational hazard Petebutt (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having nominated this as not notable, it seems that it may warrant keeping due to the civilian casualties and the centre-line closure failure of BOTH engines simultaneously. But it needs a LOT of work--Petebutt (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep or possibly merge to Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire

My understanding of aircrash notability for military crashes is for when they're more than just an "everyday hazard" and when they lead to some operational change. This crash (and AFAIK, it was this specific crash) was the crash that led to severe operational restrictions on the Javelin: the UK's all-weather interceptor was no longer permitted to fly through cloud! Either way, centre-line closure failures belong in the Sapphire article.

I don't believe that two simultaneous failures add any particular notability. This class of repeated failures was the result of external climatic conditions, rather than an "engine fault" and so it was entirely likely that both would fail together (one flight from Cyprus needed prior approval and still lost 3/4 engines when it encountered the conditions known to cause it). Also the severity of a single failure like this was known to be an inevitable aircraft destroyer (the airframe might be intact, but all control systems would be lost immediately). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The accident caused civilian fatalities. This gives the case for notability that it would otherwise not have had. Presumably the accident would have been covered in the local and aviation press, possibly in national press such as The Times so sources should be available to improve the article. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CBAN etc without prejudice to recreation by any editor in good standing. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and have another user recreate, per WP:DENY and WP:G5: the article was created by a sock of community banned mass sockpuppeteer User:Ryan kirkpatrick. Keeping Ryansock-created articles only encourages him. While this appears to be a notable accident it needs to be recreated as a valid article by somebody who is actually a legitimate editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per The Bushranger....William 01:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per The Bushranger. can be re-created later but to keep it only encourages one of the more prolific sockmasters to continue. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5: article created by a sock of community banned User:Ryan kirkpatrick. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1963 RAF Bristol Belvedere crash

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

Military crashes usually not notable - operational hazard Petebutt (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G5. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1962 RAF Bristol Belvedere crash

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

Military crashes usually not notable - operational hazard Petebutt (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Per WP:DENY and G5: article created by a sock of community banned mass sockpuppeteer User:Ryan kirkpatrick; also a tragic but non-notable military accident. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Millie's Cookies

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Seems more like advertising than anything else. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources already in the article alone demonstrate satisfying WP:NOTABILITY. It even gets international coverage, like from The Times of Malta. [44] An article on a notable topic looking like an advertisement is a matter of article improvement, not deletion.
Delete 2 extant sources - 1 is a broken link and original site finds no mention of article on search, other simply mentions a staffing change ... fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:GNG makes it very clear sources don't have to be online. Just because a link to a source went dead doesn't magically mean the source never existed. As far as your "staff change" point, I suppose you are referring to the Manchester Evening News article which goes into very in-depth coverage of Millie's Cookies as well as the staff change easily demonstrating passing GNG, not just a "mention." You've also ignored the significant coverage from the The Times of Malta article above.--Oakshade (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, importantly, see also WP:NRVE, where it states "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was notable in 2006, is still notable now. Millie's Cookies can be found in many major retail centres, like the Bullring in Birmingham, and the Oracle here in Reading (which explains why I've heard of them), which is indicative of WP:ORG being at least partially met. Its marketing director did a Q&A with Marketing Week, although that probably isn't indicative of any further notability. The Times of Malta is a good source, and goes beyond being routine. Likewise the Manchester Evening News source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Urban Campaign

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

No indication of significance and third party reference links Itsalleasy (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "No indication of significance" is CSD criteria, but does not apply since the article makes numerous claims of significance. The question here is one of notability, and the nominator apparently failed WP:BEFORE because I found third-party coverage of the program at the American Planning Association, the Cities Alliance, the NGO Practical Action, the Deutcher Bundesstag (i.e., the German Parliament), the International Union of Architects, and more. Easily passes WP:GNG. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not all of these sources are third party. some of these are partners of the World Urban Campaign, such as the Bundestag, Practical action, and cities alliance. LibStar (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. coverage tends to be in the planning professional community so not entirely third party. what would get it over the line is coverage in mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to problems with notability, there is no content worth saving. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Deutsch

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

No indication of significance and third party reference links Itsalleasy (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text gives clear indication of significance and has third-party references. For example, the new album by this artist was an editor's pick in the current issue of Downbeat, the major jazz magazine. Jasondcrane

*WT:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria are here. No. 1 is borderline: Downbeat is good, but his own website and Sofia Rey's can't be counted. Helium and fromthetop are trivial mentions. Reviewyou appears to be paid for by the submitter so probably isn't good. cdbaby is a retailer. Earshot is fine. That totals 2 good sources by my count. No. 5 is unclear: what labels were the albums released on? Looks like he should or will be notable, but the evidence presented in the article is borderline. EddieHugh (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, these are fair points. I'm adding additional citations (Huffington Post, JazzCorner, NYC Jazz Record) to the article. Jasondcrane —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with references in Huffington Post and Downbeat already linked in the article. Nominator needs to learn to check citations before nominating for AfD. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Winter Music Conference. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WMC 2009

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

This material is covered in Winter Music Conference, the article for the series of conferences under their present name. Separate articles for individual meets of an annual convention are not appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Danel

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

I am a little unfamiliar with our standards for musicians, however I note that the only sources on the page are broken links, directory sources, and random pages that are not reliable sources. This source is the only one that looks ok.

Either he is not notable, or he is notable but the current article is almost exclusively promotion and original research. In either case a deletion seems appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the standards aren't difficult to grasp. Sell a bunch of records, or release a couple of records on a big label, get some attention from the press, and there you are. It's hard to believe that this promopiece, full of discographies and whatnot, is so poorly sourced, and that there are so few reliable sources available for this guy (yours is valid but doesn't have much to say). The French article is just as bad (it's even tagged as promotional, first time I've seen that in a French article), and the Dutch is probably worse (I checked to see if they had some references to offer). So I'm hesitant to say delete right now; I'm curious to see if this AfD brings up something new. And perhaps someone will be excited enough to seriously prune this resume/article. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ! There's been some talk on the French article. I added some sources here and there on it at the time. But some guys seemed to be quite agressive about the article or the artist himself. It seemed to me it was quite abusive sometimes. The promotionnal tag is quite recent, and appeared without any major change if I remember. Internet is quite full of references about the guy (records, gold discs, videos, duets with guitar greats etc.). There are videos of tv advertising, gold discs ceremonies at sony records, press articles, etc. In my opinion, the article has to be modified, but certainly not deleted. I suggest I can do that and you see what you think about it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.150.158 (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Changes are done, and new sources have been added. It is certainly three times shorter now, which is a good thing. I think it is now aaceptable :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.19.150.158 (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs cleaning and inclusion of material from the French article, but a number one album in his nation's charts and gold status meets WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Walter Görlitz. May also benefit from being tagged with {{expand language}}. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Art Productions

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. No Spanish language article. Boleyn (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 16:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show how this record label is ultimately notable. They seem to have received no coverage in any reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Jennylyn Mercado

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

Totally unsourced fancruft-article listing awards and nominations allegedly received by a Filipino celebrity. If there had been at least some sources/references in the article it could have been merged with the main article, Jennylyn Mercado, but as it is, with not a single source/reference for anything, there's nothing to merge. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as nomination and deletion arguments are invalid per my comments here in another, completely identical AFD started by the same editor (also with identical delete !vote from the same second editor). postdlf (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or merge to Jennylyn Mercado if, as postdlf claims, there's something verifiable here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 09:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Griswold

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

Promotional article on founder of health care company, despite unsourced claims of commendations there is no indication that this person meets notability standards. Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice CV, but not seeing any major distinctions to establish WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Dennis Trillo

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

Totally unsourced fancruft-article listing awards and nominations allegedly received by a Filipino celebrity. If there had been at least some sources/references in the article it could have been merged with the main article, Dennis Trillo, but as it is, with not a single source/reference for anything, there's nothing to merge. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as nomination and deletion arguments are invalid per my comments here in another, completely identical AFD started by the same editor (also with identical delete !vote from the same second editor). postdlf (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This sort of contents is not justified as a separate article, except perhaps when the person is really famous and it's necessary to split the main article. The awards someone gets is so intimately related to their own notability that it's rationally part of the main content in all cases. I'm not even saying merge,because it's time to root out this way of making two articles when one would do better. I note for good measure that more of these are nomin ation than wins, and unless the award is of great importance, nominations are not necessarily even proper article content. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Sledd

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing listing for IP editor. Rationale is as follows:

~~Delete~~ Withdrawn by nominator I feel the article should be deleted for the following reasons:

The article fails to meet the "Significant coverage" portion, as defined in the General Notability Guidelines. The policy states that, the coverage should be significant so that, "no original research is needed to extract the content." While there are a few articles about Mr. Sledd's (now defunct) "Ask a Gay Man" series from his hometown and other sources or the fact that his account was relatively popular in the early days of YouTube, they are insufficient for a standalone article about him. This can be clearly contrasted with Michael Buckley, a YouTuber who is notable and has significant coversage. The coverage of Mr. Sledd is not significant and thus, there should not be a standalone article about him. Because of this lack of sources, the article consists almost entirely of original research relying on primary sources because of a lack of secondary sources about Mr. Sledd. A quick survey of these will reveal that Mr. Sledd was mentioned in a few secondary sources surveying early YouTube posters and where they are today, but he does not rise to a level of notability for a standalone article.

The article fails to meet the "Sources" portion of the General Notability Guidelines. Because of the dearth of secondary sources about Mr. Sledd's life, the article's writers have relied on primary sources (his videos on YouTube). Perhaps an article about the "Ask a Gay Man" series he had would be more appropriate than a stand-alone article on Mr. Sledd.

The article fails the "Independent of the subject" portion of the General Notability Guidelines, because the sources necessary for a stand-alone article on the subject were produced by the subject himself (i.e. primary sources).

"No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason," from the Wikipedia is not a Newspaper page. Mr. Sledd has not produced ongoing videos in his series and is inactive. It seems that he simply took advantage of the flashpan that was the budding days of YouTube. A quick check shows his latest video on his account has 15,000 views (11 months old). Does this really rise to the level of Internet Celebrity? Again, while his Ask a Gay Man series may be notable, I doubt that he, as an individual, is. While Wikipedia makes clear that "notability is not temporary" and that a notable topic may fade into obscurity, I believe a re-evaluation of the notability of this article is in order. A voter in a previous article stated that deletion would probably be pointless because Mr. Sledd was a growing trend and would continue to grow. The opposite has in fact happened and Mr. Sledd has chosen to remain a low-profile individual. This is why people should avoid speculating on the future during deletion discussions.

Many argued in previous deletion discussions that Mr. Sledd should be included as notable by virtue of his popularity on YouTube. According to VidStatsX he is the 7317th most subscribed and the 9237th most viewed. If one is to espouse that argument, should the top 10,000 of YouTube be included in Wikipedia? Disregarding this, if we look to external sources for notability, we see that they are few and far between. There were a few blogs in 2009 of former viewers wondering where he went or documenting early YouTube stars... but does this really warrant inclusion in Wikipedia??

Withdrawn by nominator The article has been completely re-written. I now believe that there are sufficient sources to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I was not aware many of the original sources had been removed. Kudos to whoever re-wrote the article; great work. 207.255.102.180 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My completion of this nomination should not be construed as a !vote in either direction. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - past nominations ended in 2 deletions and 2 keeps, more recently. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but should be taken with a grain of salt! It is worth noting that the two keeps were within a few days of one another. Really, the fourth deletion nomination should never have happened (it was only like 2 days after the third nomination). If you read the comments, it was a speedy keep really because a deletion discussion had happened only a few days prior, not because of a firm belief of notability. The way I see it, really there were two deletes, 1 keep, and one nomination that should have never happened. It's something to keep in mind. Also, the last nomination was in 2008, while Mr. Sledd was still growing in popularity on YouTube. As I stated, one of the participants in that discussion voted a weak keep because he believed Mr. Sledd would continue to grow. The opposite has happened and Mr. Sledd has left YouTube. It's been around 6 years and there's an article on Wikipedia about an individual that does not belong in Wikipedia. According to the automated tools I see, his account is 7317 on the most subscribed, and is 9237 on most viewed. There were many people arguing that Mr. Sledd should be included solely because of his popularity on YouTube. They argued that THAT was enough for his notability, and that YouTube was the new frontier of the internet, etc.... Are the top 10,000 people on YouTube supposed to have articles? In my opinion, this is why people should avoid including people whose notability is not established by outside, independent sources. 207.255.102.180 (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick look at the history of the article, and then for sources available, show that the article has been routinely targeted removing content, sources, and even the main photo. Looking for sources there are many available. Including all those that had been removed in the past. The article needs to be redone completely, but it's not a tear-down. Just because his notability was tied to YouTubing does not make him less notable or respectable, just non-traditional. This is a clean up job. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TorFX

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

This is an advert. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A user probably connected to the compnay has tried to beef it up but it is still weak on notability. One quote in a newspaper, a local business award (everyone who buy a table at the event gets one) and the Sunday Times award. It's not really enough. Redirect to Currencies Direct? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see any solid notability in this. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that it doesn't meet GNG. Wieno (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Campbeltown. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Askomill

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

I live here. The picture is of the streets High Askomil and Low Askomil in Campbeltown. No resident of Campbeltown has ever alluded to these being a separate settlement. Letters to my house are addressed with "High Askomil, Campbeltown". I can find no reliable source that refers to Askomill as being a separate settlement.

This council webpage explicity refers to High Askomil as a street within Campbeltown. Armarosi (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Campbeltown. Sources suggest its not a distinctly separate place. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no sign of any independent existence. Failing that, redirect to Campbeltown. Ben Mac Dui 19:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 04:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Campbeltown per nom. (Looks like a lovely place, BTW). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All India Kashmiri Samaj

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

Advocacy article for political organization -- no substantial references bout the organization itself . DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable organization. The present state of the article ought to be dealt with a rewrite, not deletion. Google books gives 27 results for 'All India Kashmiri Samaj' (in Latin script), there are also texts that use 'All India Kashmir Samaj'. --Soman (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which do you think are substantial? DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=YNMQNnW_QRgC&pg=PT52, http://books.google.com/books?id=QDYhj5IQJrsC&pg=PA166, http://books.google.com/books?id=-kduAAAAMAAJ --Soman (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectively: Doesn't seem to mention AIKS at all, merely mentions AIKS, Google doesn't permit me to read it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a Social Organisation, or a socio-political organisation to represent the voice of the minority community of the Kashmir Valley region. It would be inappropriate to call it a advocacy article for a political organisation, which it is clearly not. Ample credible sources are cited where the name occurs in notable dailies & news articles. It would be too early to judge it for deletion. We need to allow the article to mature & take better form. -Ambar (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article which mentions the Youth wing of All India Kashmiri Samaj - YAIKS. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/not-successful-in-ensuring-return-of-kashmiri-pandits-omar/1/334577.html . Should provide some content & citation clues for the article. -Ambar (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Group FMG

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep barely enough RS ... would be nice if the external links could be nixed BlueSalix (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added Hoover's ref, making it close enough to WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - won 4 Webbys which is like the Oscars for media. Notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgrbengal (talk • contribs) 11:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winner of an award from PrintWeek ^[1]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Leith Agency

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

Notable in Leith. Not notable on Wikipedia. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added sources. Extensive coverage in Scottish press; also some in UK advertising/marketing trade publications (Campaign, Marketing Week, Creative Review) and UK-wide business press. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added Hoover's ref. Now is WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paligap

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no real claim or sources to meet WP:CORP. just a small company. LibStar (talk)|

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

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

The result was merge to OMD Worldwide. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manning Gottlieb OMD

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of RS indicates failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to OMD Worldwide leaving a redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to OMD Worldwide (WP:PRESERVE). Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.printweek.in/News/358853,winner-of-printweek-india-creative-repro-company-of-the-year-2013.aspx

[1] ttp://www.printweek.in/News/358853,winner-of-printweek-india-creative-repro-company-of-the-year-2013.aspx

[1]