Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 June 30 June >

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 merge to Florida–LSU football rivalry. Information about the football game can be added to the 2007 Florida Gators football team and the 2007 LSU Tigers football team articles too. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime Drama

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

I propose to Merge the essential facts of this article to a single paragraph summary within the existing Florida–LSU football rivalry article. Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, "[r]egular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Therefore, such events must satisfy the general notability standards per WP:GNG. While this article is largely unsourced, there were numerous day-after game articles written about the 2007 LSU-UF football game, as there are about all Division I football games, but there is no indication in the college football literature that this was a truly notable standout regular season game whose contemporary coverage exceeded WP:ROUTINE. From a policy standpoint, Wikipedia does not need a proliferation of long-winded, thinly sourced articles about individual college football games of marginal notability -- that's why Wikiproject College football has actively encouraged the development of college football rivalry articles that aggregate the collective history of CFB rivalry series and provide brief summaries of the most notable games in the series. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Three relistings ought to be enough; and although the number of editors participating in the AfD has not been overwhelming, there seems to be a clear consensus for deletion. Deor (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Diamond

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

This article is troubling as it seems to be a promotional piece written by the subject, thereby violating the guidelines of WP:Autobiography and self promotion It was properly submitted and approved under the Articles for creation process, but a search does not indicate any discussion of the submitted article before its approval.

A review of User contributions to the article indicates that 87% of the edits were made by the User:jamesdaviddiamond, the subject of the article (the percentage becomes higher if we delete bot edits) and conversely, 128 of jamesdaviddiamond's 164 edits (i.e., 78%) were to his autobiographical article. This looks suspiciously like a Single Purpose Account.

When one considers the question of notability, there are three categories to consider. The subject is an attorney, a political figure, and an educator.

  • There are no formal notability criteria for attorneys and similar professionals, and therefore he falls under the general notability guidelines which caution that "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." Examination of the content of the subject's documented activities indicate what looks like a standard career of a professional attorney. There seems no sign of any out of the ordinary distinctions that would make him a notable attorney; the reference to his designation as a “Connecticut Superlawyer” [1] links to what looks like a directory of attorneys deemed to be qualified in certain specialties, rather than a noteworthy attorney.
  • He has held public office, and so fits under the Notability Guidelines for politicians. However, he has only held local office and does not seem to meet the criterion of being a "Major local political figure"; rather he falls under the caution that "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee [political] notability."

As the guideline about autobiographies cautions, "People will write overly positive impressions of themselves." This article seems to suffer from such inflation of perceptions.

SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - individually, none of his accomplishments are that notable, but he seems to pass may standards, barely: expert in Indian (sic.) law, senior editor of a law school publication, city councilman, specialized admissions/certification, etc. The only reason that I'm holding back is that a lot of his accomplishments have been, to be blunt, run of the mill for lawyers: assistant DA, lobbyist, adjunct professor, etc. If it is kept, I'd cut out the fluff, and stubify the article. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EditorJohnny (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)He seems to meet many of the standards for an attorney (Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys) having been an editor of a law school journal, a legislator, handled a notable case, taught law. I think the page should be edited and not deleted. I am going to try to curtail some of the self promotional materials — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorJohnny (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a sockpuppet investigation has been initiated to determine whether User:EditorJohnny is related to User:Jamesdaviddiamond. There is currently a backlog in the sockpuppet investigations so this may take some time. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sockpuppet investigation, mentioned above, has closed, blocking User:EditorJohnny as a sockpuppet of User:Jamesdaviddiamond, who has been cautioned about using alternate accounts "for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position". EditorJohnny's support for keeping the article can be ignored and Jamesdaviddiamond's use of a sockpuppet weakens the case for keeping his autobiography. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been silent to date throughout the entire deletion debate, silent during the review of what is referred to as sockpuppetry, or use of alternate accounts. During this period I went about the business of editing various articles which interest me, including making minor edits of the autobiographical article. The users who have participated in both discussions appear to have honorable community-minded intentions and to be unbiased. Although I wholly disagree with the conclusions reached regarding sockpuppetry, a user has been deleted and it is time to move on. As to Professor McCluskey's SteveMcCluskey conclusion that the case has been weakened for keeping the autobiographical article, nothing can be further from the truth. During this process the article has been edited and improved and the edits are wholly consistent with the comments and suggestions made on this page. When it comes down to it, the question appears to be whether the subject--me--is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. I leave that judgement to the community and only ask that my career be reviewed in its entirety and not a piecemeal fashion (legislator, attorney, educator, grassroots lobbyist, prosecutor, author, academic, speechwriter, etc.) as it is the uncommon breadth of experiences which make it notable. (I prefer not to engage in this debate, but by way of example, and it is just one brief example, few former criminal prosecuting attorneys after a 30 year career would spend a year studying American Indian Tribal Courts and Tribal Law and devote time to research the lessons society can learn from indigenous communities and link it to societal need for community healing following school shootings). If, after reviewing the merits of the article the community reaches the conclusion that the article requires more detail of notable accomplishment, or should be edited (as into a stub) or even deleted I shall gladly live with that conclusion. Jamesdaviddiamond (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find any coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, for instance no press coverage of note. Falls short of WP:NPOL as has not held elected statewide position, for instance. Predictably, fails WP:ACAD as experience is as an adjunct faculty, with Ph.D. in process, with no publication or citations of note. Several times not much does not add up to much, let along enough.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only 12 attorneys in the State of Connecticut have achieved certification by the National Board of Legal Speciality Certification as Board Certified Criminal Trial Specialists.[1] This national certification is only available after proof of proficiency in the criminal trial specialty, review of litigated matters, peer review and examination--in this case at the Yale Law School. In addition the subject has been selected as a Super Lawyer in Criminal Defense in CT and for the New England region every year since 2007. This only happens after peer nomination and upon a vote of his peers. It cannot be bought. "Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations." [2]Jamesdaviddiamond (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ http://www.nblsc.us/index.php?section=find_board_certified_lawyers&category_id=2&state=CT&city=&zip=&first_name=&middle=&last_name=&search=%A0
  2. ^ http://www.superlawyers.com/about/
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the accomplishments would seem to meet any of the criteria we use to determine notability. The achievements outlined above might be significant professional achievements but they are not enough to suggest that just holding such a position would result in the sort of significant coverage in reliable sources that we require (the substantive basis of specialist notability criteria). Ordinarily I would expect an experienced WP editor or two to step forward and offer to fix at least what can be fixed. But I imagine those offers haven't been forthcoming because of the dishonest sock-puppetry and the wiki-lawyering (or actual lawyering in this case) that has accompanied this article and AFD. Lesson to learn folks - Wikipedia editors will help those who approach their dealings here with honesty and integrity. St★lwart111 07:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As a note unrelated to the close, please note that the biography is a copyvio, as the text of the biographical information was present in IMDB as early as November 2005, according to the Wayback Machine. j⚛e deckertalk 05:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Hogan

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

Notability not shown with any sources, let alone the WP:SECONDARY ones required by WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As the nom indicates there is nothing to suggest notability here and no sourcing. Then there is the troubling fact that Heather Hogan#Bio is a carbon copy of the mini-bio at IMDb [2] and that Heather Hogan#Filmography, aside from part of "Other notes", replicats the IMDb "Actress" filmography [3]. The likely copyvio of the bio is not good. I say "likely" since we don't know exatly when IMDb's section went up, but it's better to err on the side of caution that we didn't get there first. And yes, a filmography is going to look similar, but the near replication of the IMDb list in full and the copyvio makes more than a simple list suspect. - J Greb (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER for having significant roles in notable things. Ducky is a main character in the Land Before Time films he did, plus other things stand out if you look at his bio. Dream Focus 02:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean the section that is going to get turfed as COPYVIO? - J Greb (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're here to discuss the notability of the person for an article, not the article's content. I don't see it as a copyvio at all. The information was changed. You compile a list like this anywhere, listing the year, the series, and their roll in it, it'll look similar to other list. Dream Focus 06:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Points of clarification: 1) The "Bio" section is a direct lift from IMDb. It goes even if the filmography stays. 2) While the filmography, name, and profession of "Actress" can be supported from the show and film credits, nothing else has any supporting information aside from the text copied from IMDb. And that assuming IMDb is correct. 3) An AfD can look at the totality of an article, not just the points the nom raises. If there are additional content or policy issues, they get dealt with.

          Now, are there other sources for that information, or is it going to get pulled via BLP at the same time the copyvio gets yanked? If the non-list section goes, is the list of credits sufficient to meet all relevant Notability standards? At this point, without the issues other than Notability being fixed, the Article content amounts to:

            "Heather Hogan is a voice actress who took over the role of Ducky, one of the main characters in animated film franchise The Land Before Time,
            for the second, third, and fourth installments. She has also voiced secondary or minor characters in a few animated films and televisions series
            while concentrating on voice work in the video game industry."

          Which makes for a slim article at best, even with the full filmography. - J Greb (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would just be redone in a different way. The size of the article is not relevant anyway. The information is confirmed in the credits of the things she has been part of. She also list things on her official website [4] Dream Focus 10:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, if the list was a direct copy it'd have the same information. Here she is listed as being in Lunar: Silver Star Harmony in 2010, but no mention of that there. Instead IMDb list her doing Lunar: Silver Star Story Touch in 2012. Her website resume doesn't list either of these, she not considering it notable enough to mention at all apparently. That and other differences convince me it is not a copy violation. Also I checked the history, and the list as it is now was added over time starting in February of 2006 [5] and just bits and pieces added over time. Dream Focus 10:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Taber

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

Interviews are primary sources. To satisfy the notability requirement of WP:BASIC, in-depth coverage must be seen in WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 21 June 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) 18:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the lack of significant coverage in independent secondary sources. To the nom, interviews are not always primary sources - a person being interviewed not only reiterating their past but contemplating it can be a secondary source. But it is not a independent source which is a requirement as well for notability, and that's not shown here. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It says in the article clearly Star Wars: The Clone Wars (TV series) (2008-2014) – Padmé Amidala[1]. She played a major character on a notable show for six years. That and her other work seem to clearly pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 22:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, covered in reliable sources. I have added some to the article. Antrocent (♫♬) 08:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of those added: About.com is not a reliable source (it's an SPS), the Variety article does not give "significant coverage" as required by WP:N, and while the interview is good, it again is an issue with independence of information (as I've described above). --MASEM (t) 17:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wired magazine did a long interview with her. [6] And she is interviews for a television interview at [7]. But her notable roles make her pass WP:ENTERTAINER easily so that's all that matters. Dream Focus 21:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interviews are not sufficient sources as they are not independent (even if they are secondary). And I disagree that she meets the "multiple significant roles" that ENT #1 requires (ignoring the present discussion at WP:BIO about whether voice actors should be included in that.) Her resume only boost two standout roles, Amadla in the Clone Wars works, and FF12; the rest are a smattering of parts. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no difference from someone writing about someone or interviewing them and writing about that. They are notable enough to get coverage. And how many standout roles do you think someone needs? Dream Focus 23:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources do not rise to WP:GNG, but do not need to, as we can verify she meets WP:ENTERTAINER --Rob (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interviews may not be always reliable for some things, but they are worth something. As long as they are with an organization that chooses to interview people, instead of just interviewing everyone, the interview is worth noting. It is a lazy-mans way of writing an indepth article, but they are indepth. She clearly passes the multiple significant roles criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is voicing Leia in Star Wars Detours after voicing Amidala on Star Wars: The Clone Wars for its six seasons, sources found that are independent of the interview. She is also the voice of main character Penelo in Final Fantasy XII. -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There were a substantial number of keeps but for the most part these either failed to understand the requirements of the GNG or else failed to respond to counter claims that they do not meet GNG. I caution anyone from following the link to ref#2 which set off my security software for attempting to run an untrusted application. SpinningSpark 12:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Barrett

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

Minor conspiracy theorist not notable by WP standards, fails WP:BIO. With the exception of one incident in 2006 (see WP:BLP1E for why one incident isn't enough), links are either to primary material, a student newspaper (not WP:RS), other non-WP:RS sources, or refer to a minor and badly failed House candidacy in 2008 (fails WP:BIO for politicians). Page is listed in the "9/11 conspiracy theory" category, which artificially inflates the number of pages linking to it. Note that the previous AfD unleashed a truly remarkable amount of sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry from the conspiracy woodwork and this is likely to happen again. Fleenier (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep On the keep side we have a lot of RS refs in this article. On the delete side many of those refs (Chi Trib, CBS, AP) relate to the initial incident. The congressional race doesn't meet the political notability test. On the keep side a number of the refs (Atlantic Monthly, ADL, NY Sun, The Week) relate to his continuing conspiracy theory activity. The ADL ref marks him as one of the nation's leading anti-semitic conspiracy theorists. I think this ultimately (perhaps barely) falls on the keep side. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The discussion here has changed my mind. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 2013 ref right in the first line [8] from The Week that talks about some of his recent conspiracy mongering. It is accompanied by a 2011 Atlantic Monthly ref and a 2011 ADL ref. Perhaps not enough, I am unsure, but certainly recent (event was 2006). Capitalismojo (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge a few bits. There just isn't enough meat on the WP:RS bone for an entry on Barrett himself, I think. A better approach would be to fold some—and not much—of the recent WP:RS-supported conspiracy material into the relevant pages already existing (International Conference on Hollywoodism, Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories, etc.). In each ref, it appears that Barrett is mentioned almost in passing among others sharing the same conspiracy theory, and the emphasis is not on Barrett per se in any biographical sense but the conspiracy theory he (but not he alone) spouts. That is, it is not Barrett himself that the WP:RS are interested in, but the conspiracy theories he shares with others, and the latter is the part that therefore belongs on WP. I think delete-and-merge could well address the matter of Capitalismojo's recent WP:RS sources while not inflating Barrett's quite questionable personal importance to the level of actual notability. Fleenier (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This guy had been quoted by several media outlets (such as Press TV) and has earned the special attention of the Anti-Defamation League. His views have been discussed in the New York Times and his teaching of a course (in which he promoted his 9/11 conspiracy theory) at Madison University drew national attention. In addition, the article documents that his conspiracy theories are not limited to 9/11. He may not be the most well-known conspiracy theorist, but he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Much of what you say is covered under WP:BLP1E; beyond that one incident, there really doesn't seem to be much there except a garden-variety PressTV-affiliated internet crank interviewing internet cranks with sunspot theories and the like. Fleenier (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His 9/11 conspiracy is certainly what he is best known for, but he has promoted other conspiracy theories as well (such as Israel being responsible for the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370). His 2008 Congressional campaign is also notable, although its true the sources in this section seems to be lacking. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Under WP:BIO for politicians it's hard to see how Barrett's candidacy is notable: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" It might be worth mentioning as part of the "Hollywoodism" article that Barrett is among those the ADL calls out for attending, as part of the Veterans Today gaggle of loons, but I just don't think there's enough significance here to hang a full Barrett biographical article on, and the conspiracy/antisemitism material is better addressed in other ways.
You might find that sunspots link amusing, BTW.
Fleenier (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does this change the application of WP:GNG? Fleenier (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Barrett authored Press TV article syndicated by Eurasia Review [ref 1, he also appeared on Press tv ref 2Jonpatterns (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eurasia Review and some appearances on Iran's tiny state-run English-language blog and internet TV channel -- doesn't really seem to be enough to hang the existence of an entire bio article on, does it. Fleenier (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Mhhossein (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:BLP1E; there's a general agreement here that there's essentially no WP:RS coverage of Barrett outside one incident in 2006. Fleenier (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to coverage subsequent to 2006 which would overtly rule out WP:BLP1E?SPACKlick (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walton-on-the-Hill#Bramley School. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bramley School & Nursery

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

It's simply not notable. There are 4 cited sources; two are directory type listings. One is a routine inspection report by the responsible authority and finally the school's own website. No press or any other independent reliable sources that prove notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 19:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Federation of Astrologers

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. Other content issues are apparent, I .. must admit that I was frankly surprised to find that this wasn't the organization's About page, not including the separate advertisement which now leads the description of the organization. j⚛e deckertalk 18:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Organized in 1938, this seems to be perhaps the longest-running astrological association, per THIS. I'm strongly leaning towards Keep from the outset, will search for sources... Carrite (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be the subject of a book, Edna Carr Edmonson's A 50-year history of the American Federation of Astrologers. Could be an internal history, but definitely something mineable for verifiability. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems also to be a book publisher, see for example: James H. Holden, A History of Horoscopic Astrology. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - if someone finds sources that cite this organization, I'm willing to change my vote, but as it stands, the organization in question is simply not notable. That does not mean that they are not important to someone. Being a publisher, or a baker, or a candle stick maker, does not make you notable. Having folks write about you does. Nickmalik (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I first googled "AFA wiki" to find a disambiguation page that did not list the AFA at all. I made a suggestion that it be listed.

Then I thought of googling, "American Federation of Astrologers wiki" and found this page, which surprised me. Then I was further surprised to find it was listed for deletion.

The American Federation of Astrologers, like them or not, approve of them or not, are the largest and oldest astrological society in the world. Since 1950 they have published some 640 books, all of them on astrology. They have held annual or bi-annual conferences since the late 1930's, they have a membership in the thousands. If you want I can phone them and get an exact number for you. They have published a monthly newsletter for some decades - ink on paper. The AFA were an outgrowth of the American Academy of Astrologicans, founded in 1916, and the Astrologer's Guild of 1926, both long gone.

Wiki's blatant hostility to astrology is well-known, though here and there I am starting to see cracks in the facade.

Please end this discussion by keeping the entry for the American Federation of Astrologers. It easily qualifies for it own unique Wiki page.

Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.102.104 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing academic discussion of astrology history per WP:NOTFORUM Ivanvector (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Wiki's rules for significant organizations, let's continue:

The applicable rules are intended to apply to insignificant groups. The person who declares himself to be the president of a group with him as its only member.

Wiki needs to revise its policy to include groups which have been socially excluded, which astrology, as a whole has, and which the AFA, specifically, has been.

Wiki will refuse to do this for the simple reason that the underlying problem with astrology is not scientific, but political. Wiki does not want to be the one to let the side down and be the first to admit astrology might exist. It would rather someone else went first.

The consequence of this policy is that Wiki attracts bullies as editors which it cannot control (there seems to be no end of them), while, on the other hand, it generates a great deal of hostility in the general community, who are unaware of the 364-ish year battle to eradicate astrology by every means possible.

The "scientific" hostility to astrology is based on the French Enlightenment of 1650 which declared the subject a dead letter. This was codified in 1751, a century later, in Diderot's Enclyclopedie. No rationale was given. You can read the original entries for both Astrology and Astrologer in English translation if you like. These opinions had previously been restricted to catchpenny publications of no merit, as you will find in F. Leigh Gardner's Catalog Raisonee of Works on the Occult Sciences, Volume II, originally published in 1911, reprinted n 1977 as Bibliotheca Astrologica, by Symbols and Signs, North Hollywood, CA. Gardner, who was loosely associated with the Golden Dawn, had bought an old library from someone who collected everything, good as well as bad. It's a useful survey. There were very few books, from the start of printing, up to about 1890 or so, that escaped him, as I have long used him as a reference.

The origin of the French Enlightenment has been a puzzle but has a simple source: It was a reaction to the end of the 30 Years War some two years prior. In that war Germany had destroyed itself and its science and culture. The Enlightenment was the French asserting themselves as superior. Which they have done at every opportunity since.

The underlying reason for this, as well as a possible explanation of why astrology specifically was banned, may have to do with a fear that Lutheranism, in the guise of the Huguenots, might spread uncontrollably throughout France - as the Cathars very nearly did some centuries before. No one wanted a religious war in France. (Germany was a ghastly example.) Separating French culture from German culture might have been part of the solution. In this regard, note the spread of atheism in France as a result of the Enlightenment as a counter both to the Church and to the Huguenots. This uniquely French atheism has persisted to the present day and has long included many scientists (Wiki editors among them, it seems).

It is notable that prior to the 30 Years War, astrology was strongly developed in Germany (as well as England), which was one of the things the Germans got from the Italian Renaissance, as you can derive if you read closely the Wiki entries on Italian Renaissance, French Renaissance, and German Renaissance. As the Renaissance was itself touched off by plunder taken by the Crusaders from the Holy Land, you should also Wiki the Twelfth Century Translators. Know that most of the books that John of Seville and his friends translated were astrological in nature, as those were the most highly prized. They produced Latin translations of Arabic translations of Greek originals. Many of these have recently been translated into English by various academic as well as astrological translators. The result may well be as profound in the 21st century as it was in the 15th. These are still powerful books.

So far as the French exclusion of astrology, remember the French have always excluded what they did not like. The early Impressionists were excluded from the official salons. The French have repeatedly attempted to ban popular English-language words and phrases, such as le weekend (le fin de la semaine), only to be defeated by its own population, who will have none of it. Presently the French are attempting to ban Muslims. The French are highly insular and highly centralized, always have been, always will be. Please don't fault me for writing that. Do your basic homework. This does not mean I dislike the French or think of them inferior in any way. I am fluent in the language and am well-traveled in the country and while I admire them greatly the culture itself baffles me. Which is an honest statement.

Since at least the 1980's, astrologers have had increasing fun romping through the old texts and reinventing themselves. Thanks to the work of Otto Neugebauer, David Pingree, Robert Schmidt, Benjamin Dykes and some others, Hellenistic astrology (a rather inferior brand, in my opinion) is on the verge of becoming a subject taught at the university level here in America. Seventeenth century English astrology may yet emerge at the university level in England, as there are are academics sorting through the writings of Simon Forman, which will lead them in all manner of interesting directions which have already been well explored by people just outside the university. For that matter, a uniquely German astrology emerged in the early 20th century, which has students here in the US. As for the French, astrology continues to be little known. As a culture they just don't like it, which is an opinion to which they are entitled.

Wiki should recognize the objections to astrology have been, are, and will continue to be political, not scientific. American astrologers may revive the subject only to discover that astrologers have always been reviled, as the subject itself is a nasty one and always will be. So long as excuses can be invented, various heroes can be found to continue to exclude and deny astrology, often at no credit to the truth.

Astrologers exist, like it or not. Virtually every astrologer knows of the American Federation of Astrologers. To the members of the community, the AFA is like asking if you are a Republican or a Democrat, it's that well-known. Wiki should excuse itself from this ancient, rancid, French argument and let the AFA page stand.

My suggestion: Revise Wiki's rules for significance to admit groups and organizations which are socially excluded but significant and well-known in their own communities. Heaven knows, I can find enough obscure organizations with Wiki pages.

No, I do not sign these. Wiki bans astrologers who write with their own names. That's social exclusion. Which is a topic that I believe has its own Wiki page. You might review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.102.104 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the AFA appears to be a prolific niche publisher according to this; whether you'd consider that a reliable source or not, it does seem to demonstrate notability. Regarding some of the IP's comments above, I mostly didn't read it but would like to point out that this debate is not aimed at excluding this organization because of societal norms or because some editors don't like it. We don't do that here. If the subject demonstrates notability, it gets included, and I think this meets the criteria. I might think that astrology is bunk but that has absolutely no weight here. Ivanvector (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 19:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gunther

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

I don't feel that this person is notable. Fails WP:SOLDIER - does being mentioned in a book make him notable enough? Gbawden (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 17:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It would be difficult to ask for much more in terms of sources here... there are inline citations, good ones, for practically every sentence. You want to be able to look up this sort of information here, this is what Wikipedia was made for. Not every article can be the kind of general nouns you find in a dictionary like "airplane" or "quantum mechanics."Christopher Lotito (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet GNG or even SOLDIER. Doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On one had there is a bunch of assertions that this passes the GNG and on the other that it doesn't. To be clear mentions doesn't cut it because GNG requires detailed sourcing but milage on that varies. I think some commentary about the depth of detail of the sourcing will help the closing admin decide where to go on this; Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. He is notable for his death, which has been the subject of academic study. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. It's hard to find now, but his death got significant media coverage at the time. Some examples are: "Canadian soldier killed just after truce deadline in Bosnia Death may again raise questions about suitability of lightly armoured personnel carriers in combat zones." Globe & Mail [Toronto, Canada] 19 June 1993: A12.; "CANADA WATCH Quebec peacekeeper remembered." Globe & Mail [Toronto, Canada] 24 June 1993: A4. Tchaliburton (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided by Tchaliburton suffice. Haven't considered all the previous discussion. --doncram 14:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone comes up with solid secondary sources. Three of Tchaliburton's links go to sources such as Esprit de Corps (magazine), which judging by its article is a popular magazine written largely by one guy with some outside contributors: it's basically a self-published source. The exceptions are a book published by the same guy (not a prominent publisher with high reputation) and one thing by Saturday Night (magazine), which likewise is a popular magazine, not the type of thing on which encyclopedia articles are written. News coverage at the time of his death, being written at the time of his death, is by definition a primary source, not a secondary source. I'm willing to change my mind if given solid secondary sourcing, but none has yet been presented. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't like the article the way it sits, but that's not the issue. The question is whether this is a GNG pass or a One Event, Not News fail... My sense is that it is the former, based on the lasting public and government reaction to his death. Piece needs to be either rewritten as a biography or retitled as a "Death of" piece. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
welcome your feedback and comments. I rewrote the entire article two times and added number of sources since it was nominated. Am open to suggested improvements. thanks Canuckle (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 05:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Atlantic

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

No evidence of notability, plus horrible formatting errors. Staglit (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the horrible formatting errors have been fixed but the lack of any evidence of notability remain.TheLongTone (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Ooo, just in time, review just in at Popscoop. No evidence of gig guides but have got some decently produced videos. I wasn't personally keen on the style of music but, as an attractive boy band, who knows. I think it was rough to delete without tagging the page or providing explanatory links here. Gregkaye (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. If I am erring, then on the side of caution--inclusion. Final contribution to the AfD gives some indication of notability. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Zacchiroli

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

Another Debian Project Leader, but not notable outside of Debian. Jamesx12345 18:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't find significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability through general notability guidelines, didn't meet any of the criteria listed for notability of academics. He's widely published, having co-authored around 50 papers in Google Scholar, mostly in conference proceedings, but at least a couple articles were in journals or books; the most widely cited had 85 citations listed in Google Scholar. If Debian were an academic organization or scolarly journal, then being director would meet academic notability, but it's not. Another test is if "the person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"; in this case, he's a professor of computer science, and helping the Debian project is related to that field, but I'm not really sure how to judge his impact. Since independent reliable source coverage is lacking, there's not really any objective measure of his impact. While I'm sure he had some impact, I don't know how active the organization is or how involved the directorship is, so judging significance is difficult. His Linked In profile includes a couple board positions as well, but nothing really leaps out as meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Some sources I considered, in addition to his own academic writings and references to them: short Linux Today article on 3rd victory, short Linux Magazin Online (German) article on 1st victory, short/medium Linux Magazine (Italian) interview, short article in oneopensource, as well as brief single-sentence mentions/quotes in ITWorld, a book, etc. Some of the sources are questionable as "reliable sources", but even if accepted, the coverage does not meet the "significance" threshold.
––Agyle (talk) 09:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says "from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user"; the previous AfD was four years ago. I read the previous discussion, and disagreed with the reasoning presented. Of 6 keep votes, 1 gave no reason, 2 said only that a Debian project leader is notable (kind of like your OSI director statement) without suggesting how that met Wikipedia's notability guidelines, 1 listed five short (1-3 paragraph) articles about the election that I wouldn't consider significant coverage, and two listed Linux Today and IT Wire coverage. The only Linux Today article I found has just three one-sentence paragraphs, which isn't significant. The IT Wire article I overlooked, as it's listed as an opinion piece with a prominent disclaimer disavowing its content; I'm a bit conflicted about accepting interviews as independent RS's for notability purposes, but even allowing it, IT Wire seems to be the only source like that. Agyle (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Chow

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally without objection to the delete rationale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Bailey

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

Unremarkable animator. Three episodes of The Simpsons over three years isn't particularly notable, and he has no awards or honors. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 19:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very weakly sourced. I agree with the nominator about his notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - next to no sources about him. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable third-party coverage SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 19:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time Bomb (Alyssa Reid album)

[edit]
Time Bomb (Alyssa Reid album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability questionable JacobiJonesJr (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 19:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Questionable whether this is best covered as a standalone article rather than merging to the article on Reid, but I see no benefit to be gained from deletion. --Michig (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Toroyan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. Nick (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Model Town Massacre

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

I created this page unaware of the fact that another page 2014 Lahore clash describing the same event exists. Rafiullah (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can simply CSD the article under G7, 'author requests deletion', I think.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 10:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garment sewing data

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

It's an unsourced essay. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, there is a list of refs as External links at the end, and one link to Birnbaum right in the text: clearly not ideal. It is somewhat essay-like, and also somewhat how-to. Delete and start over (WP:TNT) might be best, if indeed it's a worthwhile topic.
Oh my. The "(Kanawaty, 1992)" ref in the text made me wonder if ... and yes, we have a WP:COPYVIO from Towards sustainable labour costing in UK fashion retail. I will remove that one now: if there are others, further action(s) might be necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE as unsalvageable. I've removed the most blatant copyright violations; what's left isn't usable, being between quoting and essay, and probably not actually covering the subject. Let's start over. The editor needs some basic instruction in wiki-ways. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. My sense it is a roundabout advertisement for SewEasy products featuring chunks of canned WP:REFSPAM. I did a google search with "Garment sewing data" in quotes, only got 6 pages, nothing newsworthy. Can I add that the article in its current form, particularly the lede paragraph, is confusing; it does not say exactly what garment sewing data is. What IS it? Whatever, does not seem to meet GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 05:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Seung-jun

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

Deprodded by creator (now blocked for spamming...) a while back without any rationale. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Seems like a vanity bio, most of which is about a different topic anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 15:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arjunan (2016 Film)

[edit]
Arjunan (2016 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NFF, shooting for the film has not started. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like @Stylegamer: boldly moved the article for Arjunan director to actor to the film. The original content should be restored and redirect should be deleted. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qaanitah Hunter

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

This is an autobiography that lack wp:notability. I can't find reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clear COI as it's AUTOBIO. Written for promotion, the first sentence of the article is a link to the website of the subject. Can't see any reliable independent coverage or evidence of notability. Cowlibob (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World’s largest all beer can house

[edit]
World’s largest all beer can house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia isn't the Guinness Book of Records, so I'm not sure what place this article has here - isn't it a WP:ONEEVENT? It's about a self-supporting structure of beer cans that was made by students to raise money for a charity (and subsequently dismantled). Neither is it the world's largest because it was not validated by the World Records people. I'm not sure where this could be merged to (obviously not in its detailed entirety) because there's no existing Wikipedia article on Thoroughbred Park, Beer Day Out (festival) or Shake It Up (charity). Sionk (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. NorthAmerica1000 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable structure as evidenced by the RS coverage provided in the article. (If a theoretical beer can structures article was made, it could be merged instead.) Notability is not determined by importance, but rather by coverage and this passes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article discusses a unique structure – the walls and roof were made from non loadbearing material, the aluminium cans. The total weight was about 200 kg with the roof weighing about 70 kg. The main sources are primary, being photos and a time lapse video. The time lapse video would be almost impossible to fake. The primary sources were backed up by newspaper and TV coverage. As far as validation of the record, this was discussed in an earlier, rejected draft. Guinness book of records didn’t have a suitable category (they have a category for aluminum can sculpture which are solid objects and therefore didn’t suit the freestanding house). Although Guinness might be the most well known institution in this area, there are others. The Academy of world records accepted the house as a world record but it was never registered because a substantial fee was required. RecordSetter accepted the world record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwhatman (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article needs rename, we don't normally title things by "world's largest", it looks like roadside marketing (WP:PEACOCK). There is no reliable body to determine since Guinness doesn't have a category. RecordSetter appears to be crowd sourced. Not saying this information can't be in the article but the title should be scaled back. -- GreenC 05:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That argument is 100% Other stuff exists SPACKlick (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First reference is the very definition of WP:OR, 2nd source established the festival, not the house. I doubt that the record setter source is WP:RS, 4th and 5th sources are local coverage (significant but misdated across less than a month), 6th source is a repeat of the 4th, 7th source is not a source but a note that a source may once have existed, The last source is the only one that gives me pause. So referring to [[WP:NOTNEWS], Criterion 1 doesn't apply, this isn't a breaking event. Criteria 2 however is the one that applies, I can't find any reference to this that wasn't made within 2 months of the house being built. so not sure how enduring it is. Noteworthy is that this reference refers to a beer can house made from more cans that has been designated a landmark in Texas, which would dispute the claim of record holding or limit it to largest Australian or largest not upcycled etc. although further reading suggests it has a house inside it holding it up. More sources I found seem to refer to the Houston house than the Canberra house. I don't think WP:PEACOCK would apply if this article were sufficiently sourced to reliable sources. I don't think WP:ONEVENT applies as this isn't about a person but an event itself. I think the relevant policy is WP:GNG and it fails, not significant coverage, minimal RS. Comes a little close to WP:IINFO. Maybe Merge with Beer can pyramid, as that article could stnad for other notable beer can structures. Maybe merge into the Darwin Beer Can Regatta, as an event at one of those events. But it certainly isn't worthy of its own article SPACKlick (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 05:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Rakov

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him the Russian Wikipedia. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 10:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Me? (novel)

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

Article's subject does not meet WP:GNG. GoogleNews produces no hits, Google web search produces a list of advertisements for the book. Could not find substantive coverage from multiple independent secondary sources, so am proposing deletion. KDS4444Talk 09:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blažo Bulatović

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 09:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. As a relatively recent creation, this article maybe needs more time. I am wondering, though, if it does not maybe fall into a class of articles (WP:SUBSTUBS on young footballers/ soccer players) whose good faith creation was premised on a misinterpretation of WP:NSPORTS (?). Or maybe I am the one who is misinterpreting-- in that case, please help! KDS4444Talk 22:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to meet the GNG.[10] Mice never shop (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I did a quick Google search for this player in Serbian, and the first result was the Novosti article Vejvančický mentioned above. I've expanded the article slightly based on my reading of the Google translation of the article. The article is non-routine coverage in a reliable source, and if I had the time to translate more Serbian language articles, it would very easily meet the GNG. This is a lazy nomination at best. Jogurney (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lazy" because I don't speak Serbian but nevertheless did manage to check the Serbian and the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias and verified that there was nothing there in either one nor was there any non-trivial coverage of this person anywhere in at least the English-speaking press. Riiiiiiight. Lazy. Thank you for acknowledging the effort, though. KDS4444Talk 17:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always check for local-language coverage (using the rather imperfect online web translation tools) WP:BEFORE nominating a biography for deletion. If you're not comfortable doing this, perhaps add a notability tag to the article and let someone who is comfortable checking non-English-language sources determine whether it makes sense to bring to AfD. I suppose you did get me to slightly improve the article, but otherwise this AfD has been a time-waster. Jogurney (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Čokić

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 09:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. As a relatively recent creation, this article maybe needs more time. I am wondering, though, if it does not maybe fall into a class of articles (WP:SUBSTUBS on young footballers/ soccer players) whose good faith creation was premised on a misinterpretation of WP:NSPORTS (?). Or maybe I am the one who is misinterpreting-- in that case, please help! KDS4444Talk 22:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Vukašinović

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 09:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Radosavljević

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 09:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. This article is over five years old now with no meaningful citations, and I was able to find no evidence of this individual showing promise of becoming notable in the future. As a permanent WP:SUBSTUB, then, it appeared to fall in the category of deletable articles. Please clarify for me. Thanks. KDS4444Talk 22:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Pavić

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 09:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. As a relatively recent creation, this article maybe needs more time. I am wondering, though, if it does not maybe fall into a class of articles (WP:SUBSTUBS on young footballers/ soccer players) whose good faith creation was premised on a misinterpretation of WP:NSPORTS (?). Or maybe I am the one who is misinterpreting-- in that case, please help! KDS4444Talk 22:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Blagojević

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 09:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Sources indicate that the individual has played in a fully professional league and so passes WP:NFOOTY. Article needs expanding not deleting. Per current consensus, players who have played in a fully professional league are assumed notable. Presence or lack thereof on Serbian WP or any other Wiki is not relevant. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Actually not sure he has played FPL. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - numerous appearances in a fully-professional league, as confirmed by reliable sources, so this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting, to bring in line with WP:GNG. Nomination smacks of WP:POINT. GiantSnowman 17:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article meets WP:NFOOTY. Very likely a player in a foreign language league is not going to have English sources. I trust you took the effort to search for sources in the languages of the player in question? Secondly whether or not another language wiki has an article isn't a metric we use for deletion, there are many very notable subjects that the smaller language wikis don't have articles for, so if we used that metric we would be deleting alot of very notable subjects. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. This article is over two years old now with no meaningful citations, and I was able to find no evidence of this individual showing promise of becoming notable in the future. As a permanent WP:SUBSTUB, then, it appeared to fall in the category of deletable articles. Please clarify for me. Thanks. KDS4444Talk 22:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no time limit on when an article has to get the citations, yes the article does obviously need to get them. But some articles will have a hard time easily getting them. In other words people might have to read foreign language articles or they might have to go to newspaper archives to find the sources. NSPORTS etc is intended to be written in a way that as close to 100% of articles that meet it probably meet GNG. In doing so its intended to give those articles a reprieve from deletion until someone has actually put the effort in to show that there are no actual sources. For a player from a foreign language country that would likely mean checking foreign language sources as part of your WP:BEFORE work. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that there is no time limit, but I also understand that after a "reasonable period of time", if no citations can be found, justification for retaining the article may no longer exist. Two years seemed reasonable to me, I am surprised that this does not seem long enough to you. Second, I understand that the absence of the subject from its own language Wiki is not meant to be a metric of the person's significance, but it would have been good evidence for retaining the article if something-- anything-- had existed there (which it did not). Third, a deletion nomination after two years does not strike me as a "rush" to delete, Trackinfo-- it is a very patient move to have waited this long in the first place, please do not misconstrue the gesture as something it clearly is not. Fourth, I consider verifying the absence of the subject from its own language Wiki and verifying that there are no non-trivial English language resources about the subject at all to add up to a pretty thorough WP:BEFORE— if I began searching the Serbian Internet for evidence of notability, I would not have any good sense of what I was finding (and would likely end up coming across a lot of references that would fail reliability or independence without realizing it). If anyone can provide evidence of such citations, then it would be helpful having those added to the article-- after two years-- rather than vaguely claiming that they "must exist somewhere" but not being able to indicate where they actually are. Instead of that happening, it appears that this article will now remain part of the English Wikipedia, with its unhelpful citations and no indication that it will develop any and no willingness or ability by the article's original creator nor anyone since to make it meet the requirements of the WP:GNG, which means it hangs around as fluff until someone else, probably years from now (won't be me), gets around to nominating it for deletion again. KDS4444Talk 17:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand your overpowering NEED to delete this guy's article. I'm only involved because this came up as an example of something that was right to get rid of because NSPORT was not adequate. Why they had to choose an obscure soccer player from Serbia to state their case of the classic example, I don't know. I don't know the sport of soccer well enough to put this in perspective. How do defensive players make headlines? Google shows me; he's an active player and has been for quite some time. He's obviously "somebody" in the middle of his career. He was good enough somebody paid a 200,000 Euro transfer fee for him.[14] even though his current team is apparently broke enough to have him pictured in uniform with the wrong name on his back, after the team lost another player for non-payment of their salary.[15] Even if he was a benchwarmer on a professional team there would be press on him. Are you 100% sure you can see everything the Serbian press has written? Is the country's press corps that internet savvy? He meant something to his 2006 team, or his couch wouldn't have itemized him as an excuse when he missed a game under suspension.[16] And if he was suspended in 2006, was there a story on that? I'd think there would be, so the absence of that in google results shows we AREN'T seeing everything in the Serbian press. He's played in almost a hundred professional games, I find him in the agate in one?[17] Maybe I don't know the functions of those soccer websites in foreign languages, but you't think other games from the team would show up more readily suggesting the coverage we can find is itself limited. Can you claim to be an expert in Serbian soccer? If you can't, then you can't assume to know enough to make any categorical statements about this or any other similarly credentialed individual. Our purpose here is to get rid of non-notable individuals. He may be low on the totem pole but he's still mentioned for his soccer playing in about a hundred different places that I can find. Its a lousy article written with too little information. It needs help probably from a Serbian soccer expert. Its not fluff, its not fraud. It doesn't NEED to be removed. Trackinfo (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article was brought up at WP:Notability_(sports)#RfC:_Should_we_consider_a_rewording_of_the_intro_paragraph_of_WP:NSPORTS. My point there is both the commonality of his name and the deluge of social media about his name and wikipedia mirrors makes a simple google search difficult. But stuff is there. I added a source that he played internationally. Someone who understands the sport might be able to pick more stuff out of the hundreds of hits on Google. What does Serbian wikipedia say about this guy? It says noting, I already indicated this above, did you read what I wrote? KDS4444Talk 17:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Certainly visible is a playing record showing he played as recently as May 28 of this year, which would be . . . do other leagues shut down during the World Cup? . . . as recently as is possible? I don't understand the rush to delete. Someone please explain. Trackinfo (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Blagojević has played in the fully-pro SuperLiga, and it appears that the article can satisfy the GNG even though Blagojević is a very common name which makes it difficult to sort through the Serbian-language sources to find significant coverage. I've expanded the article slightly, but based on my initial review of the Google results at site:rs, I think it will be easy enough to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slavko Lukić

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 09:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Sources indicate that the individual has played in a fully professional league and so passes WP:NFOOTY. Article needs expanding not deleting. Per current consensus, players who have played in a fully professional league are assumed notable. Presence or lack thereof on Serbian WP or any other Wiki is not relevant. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Actually not sure he has played FPL. Fenix down (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. This article is over five years old now with no meaningful citations, and I was able to find no evidence of this individual showing promise of becoming notable in the future. As a permanent WP:SUBSTUB, then, it appeared to fall in the category of deletable articles. Please clarify for me. Thanks. KDS4444Talk 22:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added a lot more material to the article just hours ago. I firmly believe it merits to be kept as opposed to deleted, this player has an interesting story. In addition to this he played for FR Yugoslavia's youth team and had multiple seasons in the Serbian top flight. Check out my additions to the article. Zastavafan76 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lukić has played in the fully-pro SuperLiga and the article appears to satisfy the GNG (the blic.rs article is significant coverage for sure). Jogurney (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Ristić

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 09:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Sources indicate that the individual has played in a fully professional league and so passes WP:NFOOTY. Article needs expanding not deleting. Per current consensus, players who have played in a fully professional league are assumed notable. Presence or lack thereof on Serbian WP or any other Wiki is not relevant. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Anctually not sure he has played FPL. Fenix down (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. As a relatively recent creation, this article maybe needs more time. I am wondering, though, if it does not maybe fall into a class of articles (WP:SUBSTUBS on young footballers/ soccer players) whose good faith creation was premised on a misinterpretation of WP:NSPORTS (?). Or maybe I am the one who is misinterpreting-- in that case, please help! KDS4444Talk 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There does seem to be a lack of ANY information on the Internet I can find to confirm that this 36-year old footballer actually exists. Are we sure this isn't an error? Perhaps User:Lotom could provide further information?. Ah, here's a source [18] ... there was an error in my search. Meets WP:NFOOTY then, so it's a keep. Edit, I note that game happens to be a friendly ... so here's a different source for a recent league appearance [19] Nfitz (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ristić has played in the fully-pro SuperLiga and appears to be the subject of significant coverage in online Serbian-language sources from recent years. It is difficult for me to find online sources from prior to 2012 - which would represent the majority of his career - and there is another person with the same name who is well-known as a political appointee. That said, I was able to slighly expand the article and add a few sources I found. Nfitz mentions a few others, and I'm confident this article will meet GNG with help from someone proficient in Serbian (especially if they have access to offline sources). Jogurney (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Ristić

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows only pages of statistics which are inadequate per WP:SPORTCRIT. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias (the one result on the Serbian Wikipedia is not him but another, now-deceased Marko Ristić). While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 09:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. This article is coming up on two years now with no meaningful citations, and I was able to find no evidence of this individual showing promise of becoming notable in the future. As a permanent WP:SUBSTUB, then, it appeared to fall in the category of deletable articles. Please clarify for me. Thanks. KDS4444Talk 21:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Gegić

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 08:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Sources indicate that the individual has played in a fully professional league and so passes WP:NFOOTY. Article needs expanding not deleting. Per current consensus, players who have played in a fully professional league are assumed notable. Presence or lack thereof on Serbian WP or any other Wiki is not relevant. Fenix down (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Actually, not sure he has played in an FPL. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. This article is over five years old now with no meaningful citations, and I was able to find no evidence of this individual showing promise of becoming notable in the future. As a permanent WP:SUBSTUB, then, it appeared to fall in the category of deletable articles. Please clarify for me. Thanks. KDS4444Talk 21:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a quick Google search produced Serbian- and Russian-language coverage that is probably routine, but certainly more that just collections of statistics. He has played in the fully-pro Serbian SuperLiga, so I think it's quite likely someone who reads Serbian can produce more coverage that would pass the GNG. I've started to expand the article slightly, but it does need more work. Jogurney (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petar Glintić

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search is an endless list of pages offering statistics only, no substantive coverage. Article's single reference is of the same type. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. WP:NSPORTS remains subordinate to WP:GNG, and this individual does not appear to meet the notability requirements set forth in WP:GNG. KDS4444Talk 08:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. It appears prudent to hold off an AfD discussion at this time. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 15:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make U Bounce

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

This (presently unreleased) 2014 single appears to not meet WP:NSONGS at this time. After several source searches, coverage from reliable sources is lacking, and those in the article are mostly unreliable with the exception of 4Music, which appears likely to simply include a listing of the song (e.g. see the formatting of the 4Music listing for June 27 at [20]). I found this source, which is quite short in length and coverage, but that's all thus far in terms of those to establish topic notability per Wikipedia's standards. NorthAmerica1000 06:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As this is released today, it is likely that things could change considerably before the 7 days is out. This is being played to death by BBC Radio 1 and seems pretty nailed on to chart (his last two singles were top 5 hits). We'll likely need to wait a couple of weeks to see whether an article is justified, and I suspect it will be. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's only been released today and IMHO the nomination was way too soon, Give it a week or 2 and if nothing after then AFD is the best place. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Minnesota Timberwolves. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crunch the Wolf

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

The article is unreferenced and explains no significance whatsoever about the subject. JC · Talk · Contributions 05:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Even if there is enough substantial media coverage to scrape together a minimally satisfactory stand-alone Wikipedia article, the topic is more appropriately covered in a single paragraph (with photo) in the parent team article. I would suggest the closing administrator preserve the page as a redirect to the parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Gatekeepers. Of note is that the nominator also appears to generally agree with a redirect, in a comment within the discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Steinberg

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

No WP:RS to show notability. I've worked on the article in the past and never came up with anything. He worked at the NYTimes, he wrote a book reviewed by the Times, but it wasn't a best seller, and apparently he's not written anything else. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colapeninsula. Yes, that's a good point and I've thought about that. I think it should be deleted and redirected. There are no reliable sources to back up anything about his bio. On the book, I've looked into this, read all the reviews, and read the book. His book did receive attention because he was a NYTimes reporter and the publisher used that fact to get the book reviewed by educators in high places. But the book failed. I'm not sure we should even have an article on the book, which if you have read it as I have, becomes unbearable to read. It's that bad. The narrative fails early on and it never gets better. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the way to go. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Nolasco Cruz Vergara

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

Non notable individual. MCNBiografias is not reliable, and the only other accesible source is the Library of the Chilean Congress, which is a catalog entry for a book of Cruz, but that does not make him notable. Diego Grez (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the following References are added where they do literary Interest, these primary sources are aggregated into the article and these are: [Study on Chilean literature, 1940, Pastene foreword written by M. Correa, October 1940] and [History of Literature Illustrated Francisco A. Encina, written by Leopoldo Castedo, vol. 11, pp. 144-152]

You can see here the proposed deletion [[21]] which does not take into account the references of this literary critic --Historiador1923 (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep A GBooks search shows several apparently reliable sources with snippets that seem to promise something more than a passing mention. Unfortunately, they are all in Spanish and (as already said) snippets. However, unless and until they can be shown not to live up to their promise, I think it best to keep the article on grounds of avoiding systemic bias, as online sources about a Chilean literary critic who died nearly eighty years ago are likely to be only a fraction of the offline ones. PWilkinson (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Besides mentions in several Nation-wide newspapers Cruz Vergara is praised by an apparently notable writer/critic. As "good" and relevant literature is the one that is praised by critics he has apparently some notability. Sietecolores (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Meager consensus is delete. Added sources that mention the site, or cite it briefly, do not add up to significant discussion. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll.in

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

Sparsely sourced article about a six month old company. The only useable source is a New York Times blog post by a freelance journalist from Bangalore. Fails WP:ORG. - MrX 11:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice to future recreation should the company survive and become better known. Fails web and company notability. Passing mentions to Scroll.in in the references, which are mainly focused on the 2014 India election rather than the company. I doubt if NY Times blogs have editorial oversight for fact checking etc. so reliability of that source is questionable. Nothing else substantial found through Google search.  Philg88 ♦talk 13:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources that use/quote Scroll.in content/articles have been added to the wiki article. A few reference links to interview(s) with scroll.in journalists are also included. Various issues have been touched upon in these reference articles, that highlight the company's main focus of reportage - that being politics and culture of India. --DNeha (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skread production discography

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

Subject is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK from Skread. No indication is given of independent notability and no sources are cited. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I agree on the point of sources (which I will look for again and add to the article later on), but it's a production discography like any other. Skread is a very revered record producer in France and I think the contents of the article would be too much to put in Skread's main article alone. I had even provided article links to some of the albums but it appears someone removed them. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 08:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 16:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Telly Award

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

Subject is a minor award with self nomination and the winners have pay for their own trophy and the engraving. Thousands are given annually. Cited sources are primary and or trivial in their coverage and do not meet WP:GNG. A Google yielded a gazillion hits but mostly of the run of the mill sort including lots of promotional announcements by awardees. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that link. I missed the previous AfD. After looking it over I think that both the nom and the responding comments made it more complicated than it needs to be. This is a non-major award that is handed out quite casually and in large numbers. And so far I have not been able to find in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. It's not a CORP issue (though in theory the same standard applies). It's a basic question of notability per the GNG. I absolutely am open to reconsideration if in depth coverage from RS sources are found though. I note however that the previous AfD close can be summed up with this classic line from the discussion "Damn the RS Sources and IAR...." That is not a compelling verdict IMHO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I like IAR :-( Meh, whatever. In the last AfD I asked to keep this article. But this AfD makes a very compelling argument, I have to agree with the reasons for deletion. (Also, it's impossible to write a good article with so few sources) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 08:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just did a search on "bogus OR criticisms OR fix AND "telly awards"" and didn't personally find any dissent, at worst there was a question that was raised in a blog and this was not answered. Is there anything wrong with "self nomination and the winners hav(ing to) pay for their own trophy and the engraving"? If there are criticisms couldn't a section be placed on the page entitled something like "Criticisms of the Telly Awards"? The articles lead seems straightforward. The body does have questionable notability so perhaps the notabilty box at the top of the page can stay. The bottom of the page contains [Telly_Award#External_links]. There are links here across the industry and the Telly Awards are mentioned. Maybe some further work might be done so show this organisations place in the pecking order of awards. My only objection is not that this is a minor award but that a minor award should be called "THE Telly Awards". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards also gives evidence of extremely positive editing of the article. Gregkaye (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable, vanity self-nominated pay-to-play trophy award given to thousands each year. I see no significant coverage of the award itself in independent, reliable sources. Sure, lots of people and organizations puff their resumes by announcing that they have won the award, and they send out press releases that are repeated by credulous publications. But none of that is significant, independent coverage of the award itself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Regardless of whether it is a legitimate award (it isn't), there is no coverage in independent reliable sources about the award. The sources in the article are either primary, or simply people announcing they have "won" an award. I can find no sources in my own search. Note that I was a participant in the first AFD, and !voted delete then too. I have done fresh research to evaluate this nomination independent of the past nomination. The Tellies were no notable then, and they still aren't now. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. j⚛e deckertalk 06:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Stojanović (footballer born 1992)

[edit]
Stefan Stojanović (footballer born 1992) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search produces only links to Facebook, Twitter, IMDb, etc. The Transfermarkt link is a trivial listing of a name and statistics, not evidence of notability, as is the SoccerWay citation. Yes, he played at the levels which WP:NSPORTS suggests would qualify him for notability, but upon further inspection, I do not see this being met in real terms, and WP:NSPORTS remains subordinate to WP:GNG. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. There may be sources somewhere in one of these languages-- can anyone identify and provide links to some of these which offer any non-trivial coverage (i.e., more than just a name and some statistics)? KDS4444Talk 05:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman 17:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. This article is coming up on almost a full year with no meaningful citations, and I was able to find no evidence of this individual showing promise of becoming notable in the future. As a permanent WP:SUBSTUB, then, it appeared to fall in the category of deletable articles. Please clarify for me. Thanks. KDS4444Talk 21:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even read what was written above? You have pasted this same comment, "Appears to meet WP:NFOOTBALL", on a number of deletion nomination pages, seemingly without having done any research on the subject or reading the text of those who commented before you. Whether or not mice shop, they are expected to do at least the polite business of the latter before adding in a !vote on a nomination. If you agree that GNG supersedes NFOOTBALL, then how can you be voting !Keep? And if you do not agree, please explain so I can understand your position better. Thank you. KDS4444Talk 04:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article very clearly meets WP:FOOTY. Why would someone be wasting everyone's time with this? I'm not sure the point of doing a Google News search to prove anything, given that that it only lists articles from the last few weeks (I'm not sure it even stretches back to when his team last played!); there's no shortages of less recent articles such as [22] [23]. Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, technically those are references. I have looked at both: neither has an author's name associated with it, and neither does more than say that the subject scored a goal somewhere (how would these be incorporated into the article?). Because they are in Serbian I can't tell if they are reliable sources or not, but I understand that this does not preclude them from being considered for notability purposes. I've already explained that WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL do not apply at this point, please justify a "keep" vote on other grounds. KDS4444Talk 06:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm having trouble finding significant coverage in reliable sources, in large part because there is another more accomplished footballer with the same name who was born in 1988 (and played for BSK Borča). I can find routine coverage in match reports for the one born in 1992, but nothing significant. I'm not sure this is reason enough to delete, but we certainly need help from an editor with more profeciency in Serbian. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 16:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Vanier

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

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the fourth round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. While this high second round draft pick falls just short of the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject does however pass WP:GNG as evidenced by the many independent and reliable sources within the article, and the many more reliable sources which can be easily found on-line. Dolovis (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Sources offered are local, trivial, blogs. Would be curious to see Dolovis demonstrate the existence of "the many more reliable sources which can easily be found on-line", given his history is to claim the existence of sources yet make absolutely no attempt to provide them. Resolute 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and the sources in the article and any I can find online are trivial sources and blogs. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to meet the GNG.[24] Mice never shop (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject may or may not meet WP:NHOCKEY, but that is only meant as a rule of thumb, not as a formal policy and does not supersede the requirements of the general notability guidelines: if no appropriate sources can be shown to exist (and I, too, have looked and do not see any) then deletion is an appropriate move. I would also politely ask Dolovis, who has written nearly 6,000 stub articles like this one, to please consider what purpose such articles are serving in the Wikipedia project other than to allow an editor be able to claim having written more than 6,000 articles. Your lukewarm and so far inadequate defense (per Resolute above) of this one is making me think. Can you explain what you are pursuing here? Thanks. KDS4444Talk 14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, never mind, it seems you have a very long history of not listening to people, and I doubt you are going to start with me. Fair enough, then. You disappoint me. KDS4444Talk 16:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dolovis (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 06:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Mašín

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

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the second round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. While this high second round draft pick falls just short of the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject does however pass WP:GNG as evidenced by the many independent and reliable sources within the article, and the many more reliable sources which can be easily found on-line. Dolovis (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dolovis, if you think even one of those sources is good enough, then you really should be banned from creating articles. Every single one of the sources is a trivial mention. Fails NHOCKEY and fails GNG. Resolute 15:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am sure that Resolute read all the newspapers in not only Swedish and Dutch and German and Latvian but also reviewed the Estonian, Russian and Hungarian and especially the Czech and Finnish electronic resources as well as the newspaper articles archived in the Royal Library in Copenhagen and was very surprised to discover, after all this, that there were in fact no multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, secondary sources on this person. Except that research at THAT level is not supposed to be his job, it is supposed to be the job of the person who wrote the article in the first place as well as, at this point, the job of anyone trying to convince the rest of us that the article should be kept. I do not think that the due diligence burden is supposed to fall entirely on those voting on or nominating to delete an article once a basic search in English has turned up absolutely nothing. Googletranslate aside, there are limits on what you or others supporting these kinds of articles can legitimately expect from those who have looked and found no viable evidence of their notability. Expecting someone (not the original author, someone else) to comb through 6,000 google hits hoping to find 2 in Lithuanian to add to this article strikes me as an absurd and backward expectation. KDS4444Talk 04:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dolovis has a chronic history of creating these kinds of stub articles on non-notable sports people who pass the guidelines in NSPORTS but fail the final test of GNG and he's been doing it for at least three years so far. He's even been brought up at WP:ANI for it. GNG supersedes NSPORTS and NHOCKEY and NBASEBALL, etc. This article is just attempt to add to his roster of nearly 6,000 (no joke: SIX THOUSAND!) such articles, and it has no better sources than any of the rest. It, too, should be deleted. KDS4444Talk 04:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's amusing that he ran to ARS in the hopes that somebody else will do his legwork for him. Though this is at least a nice departure from the last round where he lied in numeorus AFDs by claiming that sources existed while never once demonstrating the existence of one. Resolute 15:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can be re-created if/when he ever meets GNG/NHOCKEY. Patken4 (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dolovis (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vitek Vanecek

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

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the second round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 05:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Jacobs

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

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the second round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. While this high second round draft pick falls just short of the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject does however pass WP:GNG as evidenced by the many independent and reliable sources within the article, and the many more reliable sources which can be easily found on-line. Dolovis (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NHOCKEY, sources given as evidence are trivial, local, blogs. Does not meet GNG at this point. Resolute 16:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dolovis (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no problem with local sources. But, I don't see substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources, local or not. Also, when adding sources, please, please, put proper citations in place, so we can easily see the names of the sources at a glance. Using the {{cite}} would be a good means. Far from helping an article, links to a bunch of unreliable sources hurt the article, because any good sources could get lost in the mix. As one example, an article written by the team he plays for is not independent, and does not convey notability. Instead of inserting everything you find in a Google search, adding just a few solid sources would be more productive. --Rob (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be re-created if/when if subject ever does. Patken4 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of the Witching Hour

[edit]
Secrets of the Witching Hour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album, merge to the bands page as per WP:NALBUM. Murry1975 (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did transclude it to the log. See diff. Mz7 (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC) But it looks like Northamerica1000's relist here overlapped mine. Mz7 (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Daisy Flower Adventures

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

Its a video game review and guide. Isnt suitable for Wikipedia LorChat 02:08, 29 June 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) 02:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a hoax. I searched under this specific name and under just "Princess Daisy" and "game". I can't find anything to verify that there's a game in development under this title and it's very unlikely that a Mario related game would receive no coverage at all. It's especially unlikely given that E3 wrapped up fairly recently and Nintendo would have mentioned a Princess Daisy game in order to gain coverage to help bolster sales, even if it was just a brief mention at a booth or an offhand comment elsewhere. Given the lack of coverage, this is a fairly obvious hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Alberta floods

[edit]
2014 Alberta floods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasn't been expanded from 3 sentences in over 10 days. Seems like news, with no lasting coverage. 117Avenue (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE news. A flood of this small magnitude will not have lasting coverage unlike last year's 2013 Alberta floods. An article for last year's event is not a precedent for articles on every flood occurring in Alberta that follows. Hwy43 (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was severe for many people, but the biggest flood in a year is not notable event in the long term. --Rob (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Just a routine WP:NOTNEWS violation at this point. If substantive consequences, actually comparable to the more genuinely notable 2013 Alberta floods, actually emerge over the coming days, then we can start a new article when that happens — but as long as all you can actually say about it is "a flood happened", the flood in question does not merit permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Francis Arab

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

Unreferenced bio. As far as I know, having a holiday does not make a person notable. 117Avenue (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory (car manufacturer)

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

This stub has been tagged as lacking any references or sources for over four years. I searched online for any reference to this company, but only got mirrors of this stub. Holdek (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pace last contribution, no real secondary sources at all. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Thengummoottil

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

Not notable per WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Poison the Well (band). There is a clear consensus that a separate artucle isn't warranted, but no consensus to remove the history of the page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Primack

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

Does not meet notability requirements under WP:MUSBIO nor WP:GNG, article includes no reliable sources. Jacona (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Angry Birds. No argument made for notability, no prejudice against editorially-considered, verifiable inclusion of facts about the topic to the target article. j⚛e deckertalk 17:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piggy Island

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

Entirely fictional, in-universe article, lacking reliable, independent sources. Angry Birds Wiki and other fan sites do not satisfy WP:GNG. Better consolidated and merged into Angry Birds, as in the case of Mushroom Kingdom, a larger and arguably better-known fictional world that is a subtopic of Super Mario (series), or Kanto (Pokémon), which redirects to Pokémon universe. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:24, 13 June 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) 23:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ayam Pelung. Of note is that the nominator also agrees with a redirect, in a comment within the discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balenggek kukuak chicken

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

I can't figure out what this is about. It is so incoherent I seriously considered CSD per G-1, but thought I'd send it here first in case someone can discern something worth salvaging. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is understandable, although another option might be to stub it with source noted above. Anyway, no doubt an Indonesian poultry expert will be along presently to clear all this up for us. :-) --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm fine with the redirect suggested in the two previous !votes. I am also curious as to the rational for relisting the AfD twice. I am not seeing any real argument for keeping the article in its current form. It is unintelligible gibberish and almost certainly a valid candidate for G-1 CSD. More than sufficient time has been given for someone to come and improve it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Michael_Moorcock_bibliography#Other_collections. More pedantically: No argument was made that the book was notable. j⚛e deckertalk 15:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dying for Tomorrow

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

Reason Mikeblas (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeblas: - what is your reason for deletion? Chris857 (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's weird. Why didn't it get saved? It's a short-story collection that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Pretty difficult to research because of the name change when it was reprinted, but AFAICT it doesn't meet notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sourcing seems to make this pass GNG. Copyvio concerns can be tackled separately, if any remain. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Costume Festival

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, created by a single purpose editor, fancy name but has only been held once and all I could find is local coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In principle this event might be notable: substantial coverage in major Manila media [32][33][34][35] for an event in Vigan is not "local" coverage, it's national coverage in a country of nearly 100 million people. The article is very skimpy, however, and there does seem to be some very close copying from the sources, so it could as easily be restarted as fixed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Lots and lots of significant independent coverage in reliable sources, so GNG is a slam-dunk. I do not know where this local/national coverage issue came from; cultural events do not have a guideline of their own. It sort of sounds like people are trying to use guidelines for organizations. Anyway, there is even some middling international coverage for this, even-coverage of artists from Europe (Georgia) [36] and Japan [37] participating-coverage in the media in their own countries. National coverage in the Philippines, as has been pointed out already. Anarchangel (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've tagged for copyright investigation, there are non-trivial texts from at least two of the sources contained in the few sentences here. Version prior to copyright blanking is at [38] --j⚛e deckertalk 01:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrote as per WP:COPYVIO rules, added info, references. Meets GNG. Still what this article needs is great photos -- I looked on Commons, didn't find much, but such photos would add to the beauty of this article. Plus, references so far do not indicate how this festival relates to similar costume-type festivals or competitions throughout the world. No attendance figures, no clear independent data on how international the event was (ie percentage of entrants from non-Philippine countries etc). Would be good to have a reference or two commenting on how the festival is seen in the eyes of costume designers worldwide; my sense at present is that it is a regional event, probably based on past parades, a way to promote tourism and domestic apparel.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. (Non-admin close. If you think I'm WP:INVOLVED, please revert.) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharna Bass

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines for musicians. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2; a mere look at Extraordinary (Clean Bandit song) as linked to on the article would prove that. After my exam this morning I will add the chart positions to the article.--Launchballer 07:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I should have notified you about the deletion discussion; I didn't notice you essentially started the article from a redirect, but I'm glad you found your way here. My thoughts on that is that the album isn't Bass's (she was featured on it), and that is basically her only claim to notability, making it borderline inheritance. I really couldn't find any sourcing that goes beyond just a mention of her being featured on the album, and so there's not much more to say other than that - a redirect would be more appropriate (as was done previously).
Otherwise, if any more editors disagree per WP:MUSICBIO#C2, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. I just think the grounds of C2 for a featured singer are iffy without any significant coverage. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have User talk:Hadji87 on my watchlist, is how I found this. In future, though, it's good practice to check the history before sending to AfD, and this is why. I have added another source and the charts.--Launchballer 10:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with SuperHamster's assessment of the situation - I'm not convinced that "Extraordinary" can be considered Sharna Bass's single under WP:MUSICBIO#C2. Either way, that criteria just indicates that an artist may be notable. The lack of any independent reliable sources giving anything other than a passing mention suggests that she isn't (yet?) notable. There just isn't enough at the moment to merit a stand-alone article. Moswento talky 09:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect / merge to Clean Bandit. She's in sources, but only in a passing context to the band. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. j⚛e deckertalk 15:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Grijalva

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

Failure of GNG Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • probable keep almost certainly will meet GNG, but needs a serious effort to source it. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This one is borderline. He has been in the media a decent amount and has worked on a number of notable things, but I can't say that he himself is notable as opposed to being on the periphery of notable things and getting mentions for his hand in them. I think he just barely fails GNG. Bali88 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' A few years as a state official, during which he got surprisingly little press coverage considering how high-profile the state fire chief of California ought to be. Passing mentions or quotes in various news stories. Nothing significantly ABOUT him. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Largely WP:V/WP:RS concerns, with a reliable source, notability would generally be presumed. j⚛e deckertalk 14:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boraj Tanwaran

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

Partially translated (very badly) from an unknown source, there is zero value to this is at it currently stands, and improvement does not seem likely or indeed possible. Recommend using WP:TNT on this so that a fresh start can be had Jac16888 Talk 11:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this page has received multiple notifications of various issues on their talk page, and replaced them all with the same content as this article with no indication that they are reading or understanding what they are being told. The page on the Hindi Wikipedia was created by the same editor as this one--Jac16888 Talk 13:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Hindi Wikipedia page is in a deletion discussion, but that is a more extensive article, and the initiator of the discussion claimed it was promotional, though based on the text as translated by Google I don't see how. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On Hindi wikipedia discussion claimed was promotional because there are no source for the article and we don't have sufficient tools to check it. If a article name and article creator's names are same, so it claimed as promotional. In real promotional it can't go for discussion and we directly use speed deletion process. On Hindi wikipedia there is one more reason for discussion which is this discussion is going on. If enwiki page will became good then we will also translate the correspond materiel. So, please don't depend on hiwiki for this page.
I tried Rajasthani also and couldn't found source for the page, That's why I nominated the Hindi page for deletion.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation of article if a reliable source for the village's existence can be found. At present there seems to be no such source. PamD 15:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'd ask @SteveStrummer: to start an WP:RM about the request to rename. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pump It Up

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

No citations to establish notability. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - There are numerous book sources that mention the game in a historical context, but none I could find that cover the subject in depth. There may be Japanese language sources though. I will change my view on notability if anyone can identify sources that raise this subject's notability so that it meets the primary criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH.- MrX 16:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources in the article are weak, but this looks to be a huge series of arcade games mostly in Korea. The company claims there are 405 in the US. The home game is notable by itself [39] and [40] for example. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not itself reason for keeping, but not only is this article available in several languages, but the Korean Wikipedia has a big navbox dedicated to the series. --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see we have a less substantial navbox of our own. Here's the thing, though. I just went through every related page on every Wikipedia it exists on and the source Hobit pasted above is the only reliable one I've seen from across all of them. It seems to have an active fan community (LiveJournal groups and whatnot), and I would speculate they're largely responsible for the level of unsourced detail across Wikipedias. As of now I'm leaning towards keeping the article about the series but merging the individual games into it (certainly not sources to sustain each individually), though the latter is, of course outside the domain of this AfD. --— Rhododendrites talk |  20:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So while the article's in poor shape, with details outside WP:VGSCOPE and no referencing, the series meets the GNG. The series has listings on Metacritic with reviews from reliable sources (even though this was a decade ago). A cursory WP:VG/RS search shows that this topic is notable as a Dance Dance Revolution clone. The series article is a good place to hold the titles of the series that don't have enough individual notability for their own articles (probably all but three or so, if we're only counting those with online and English sources). czar ♔ 22:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Michig (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Platinum Collection Volume 2: Shout to the Lord 2

[edit]
The Platinum Collection Volume 2: Shout to the Lord 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-PRODed but does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Supplied source is nothing more than a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treelodge@Punggol

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

Promotional Article Jayakumar RG (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 04:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Dyer

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

A working actress but not quite notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are references but it took some hunting, in places like Backstage Magazine. Also she is a motion capture actress; not sure what this is about but maybe it will be more common in future. Also she was a featured speaker at one of those comic cons (?); think her biggest role was the Resident Evil stuff, also she is in a videogame, probably gets lots of attention that way.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Very notable actress and voice actress. Boaxy (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy Rocks

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

Non-notable album, merge to the bands page as per WP:NALBUM . Murry1975 (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. The various special notability guidelines, NFOOTY included, live in tension with our general notability guideline. When the subject notability guidelines and general notability guidelines give different results, the community tends to weight one or the other differently depending on which subject notability guideline we are considering, but both are pretty much always in play in various degree.

In this instance, NFOOTY gives a plainly ambiguous result. Having looked to the April discussion at WT:NFOOTY, I find that while there was a consensus to remove the League from the FPL, I do not see that there is a consensus about whether the league is or isn't fully-professional, it is instead simply so far unverified either way. We don't know.

I'm left with the view that any argument based on NFOOTY here is pretty weak, and I have weighted NFOOTY arguments in general here quite weakly. In addition, SNGs in general and NFOOTY in particular is usually, as a matter of textual interpretation, treated as putting the burden of proof on those wishing to show notability via the criteria, which further reduced the weight of keep arguments based on NFOOTY.

In short, GNG arguments get most of the weight here. And we have unanimous consensus below that the players do not meet GNG.

DangerousPanda's June 1 close, mentioned below, deserves mention. I believe that it was a wise, patient close, with a prejudice toward retaining material and a Gentle Mallet of Clue suggesting that an RfC was needed on the League's status. To the best of my knowledge, discussion has completely halted on that question, no RfC has been created, the last discussion at WT:NPERSON was in April, and AFAIK no attempts have been made to pursue this through AZ-speaking editors and so on. It is now a different time, and what made sense then does not necessarily make sense today. Patience is different than acceptance that we will leave this question unanswered indefinitely.

In summary, NFOOTY's result is "answer hazy", and no amount of voting in this AfD will really get to the bottom of the ambiguity. Until that ambiguity is resolved, I believe that GNG is the only meaningful policy-based measure of the notability of players from this League. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarlan Guliyev

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriyar Aliyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Javid Tagiyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no evidence in reliable sources that the Azeri league is fully-pro, so they all fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Furthermore there is no evidence of significant coverage, so we also have a WP:GNG failure. GiantSnowman 11:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NFOOTY.--Janavar (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - Fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subjects have garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Keep votes above all make the fundamental error in assuming that the league is considered FULLY professional. The links provided above do not indicate this in any way. This merely shows they are part of an organisation of professional leagues, but does not show that all clubs playing the league MUST be fully professional. This discussion was held and the consensus is that this league is not fully professional. As such, no players in this league who have not either played in a fully professional league elsewhere or played senior international football pass WP:NFOOTY and are therefore reliant on GNG for notability. There is no indication of any significant non-routine coverage for any achievements associated with these players. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Existent coverage is not sufficient to meet GNG, as outlined by the delete votes. → Call me Hahc21 04:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Underground Film Festival

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

This article was created 88 months ago by Sydneyunderground. How come no-one has added any indication of notability? I could A7 this if I wanted to as an unremarkable organised event. Launchballer 21:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 04:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wink Technologies

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

Dead project (merged with Reunion.com in 2008), never notable. The references that initially seemed to prove notability do not really discuss the Wink service and/or do not indicate notability. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wink_Technologies Wieldthespade (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Article has already been moved to Rani Bhatiyani. Michig (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mata Rani Bhatiyani

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

Hello. No one is disrespecting the author's religious feelings, but they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. See WP:NOTESSAY and Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my view on this. Keep and move to Rani Bhatiyani based on source 1 and 4 that Redtiger has identified. Needs significant rewrite to be encyclopaedic and whoever does it has to be careful as it seems there was a queen (referred to in source 2 and 3) with the same name who I'm unsure is connected to the deity. @Redtigerxyz:, are you up for rewriting this article so it becomes encyclopaedic? You're pretty much an expert on this kind of article. It probably only needs a stub. Cowlibob (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cowlibob , Davey2010, It is rewritten. She was a historical queen who was transformed into a goddess after committing sati; a trend observed in that region. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work! Thanks for rewriting. No objections to keeping this article now. Cowlibob (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those who don't have any knowledge of Hindu culture , kindly don't propose the deletion of this article ; keep

Keep

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To put it bluntly it needs WP:BLOWNUP & rewrote, Whilst sources have been found to establish notability - The article is pretty awful and I can't see anyone fixing it (If I knew anything about the subject I would try myself). –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - dear all.. U should first have knowledge about Hinduism and it's various aspects before jumping to conclusions... If someone proposes to delete the page about Jesus Christ , how will u feel, likewise mata rani bhatiyani is a goddess of rural India and is believed to be an incarnation of goddess Durga ... If u still want to delete this article , please go ahead , this would mean Wikipedia is biased against Hindu religion and I will make sure more and more Indians know this fact that how Wikipedia is treating an article related to religious sentiments of the Hindus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ompalsbhati (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not disrespecting your religion. All articles on wikipedia need to be reliably sourced and have shown notability which I think can be achieved with a rewrite based on Redtiger's sources. Cowlibob (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 04:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Ann Armao

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

Delete, I'm going to say that this person doesn't actually pass the gng or the guidelines for wp:professional. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree, Armao seems to have gained quite the reputation in D.C. just by reading that article from the Washingtonian.Davidhar (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davidhar, I disagree there doesn't seem to be WP:SIGCOV Per WP:CREATIVE this person must show thet the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaSins Videography

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

CinemaSins is notable, but a list of all their videos is not appropriate per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I thought the videography section was entirely inappropriate, but I did not want to delete a large part of the CinemaSins page, so I created a new page. Nbain314 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stone's Been Rolled Away

[edit]
Stone's Been Rolled Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Does not meet Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many article to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I'm going to keep my vote a weak keep because of the Cross Rhythms coverage. Since it's only one source, my vote is a weak keep, and not a full keep.. Correct me if I'm doing the vote wrong. I'm very new at this. Draw a line through this. Vote amended below. Jair Crawford (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Amending my vote to a Strong Keep as the album is certified Gold by Aria. The album has an ACM mention (as well as a few other mentions in sources mentioned in the above discussion earlier) and a solid review with Cross Rhythms.Jair Crawford (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • An AllMusic review? I'm sorry, I've missed that completely. Where exactly is that? I don't see it in either the article or listed here. I see ACM, but that's barely a track listing. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/hillsong-mn0000679370/discography is their discography and it's not even listed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand corrected. I've edited my vote to indicate that it was ACM, not AllMusic. I'm on the fence between Keep and Weak Keep, I'll keep it on Keep for now. And thank you for crossing out my earlier vote for me. Jair Crawford (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • So now you have a track listing at ACM, which is not substantial. You should be on the fence between delete and speedy delete. You do need 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable 3) sources that are 4) independent of the subject. What you have is one source with minor coverage—a single paragraph, which apparently is now considered a solid review—that is independent of the subject and one source that is a track listing in another. How can such coverage be considered anything but insufficient to confer notability on the subject? I could see if it were an album released in 1981, but not one from the mid-nineties. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The notability guidelines are very general. The review might be a tad on the short side but it is a reliable source. And the guidelines do not mention anything of requiring multiple reviews. It seems a lot is left up to interpretation and I tend to favor keeping articles if they can be kept over deleting them. That's how I'm interpreting it, at least. Jair Crawford (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without prejudice to a redirect j⚛e deckertalk 14:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gatch gereftani

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

Probable hoax. No Ghits that I can find. The article was deleted, back in 2004, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatch gereftani. However, though the text is nearly identical, this article is probably not speedable as a recreation since it has the addition of a reference that I am not able to check. TerriersFan (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JSTOR has nothing. The cited source, The book of torture and executions , can't be purchased on Amazon. Worldcat says only two copies exist in Canada and only one copy exists in the US. (Fails WP:V) Since the term isn't mentioned anywhere else, it is more likely this is a hoax than a non-notable torture method. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't figure out what "Golden Books of America" Toronto is although they seem to have published books about crime, etc. The actual author of the book appears to be someone called Richard Sair, and although the book exists it is extremely rare[51] so this can't be verified. But I'm proposing a merge or redirect as the subject is already covered. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete depending on whether we can verify the roof bit. The book used doesn't seem to qualify as an RS and there isn't even a page number. We already cover this Persian form of torture in Immurement#Immurement in Persia in more detail so we certainly have no need for this article. I can find a source that calls this 'gatching'[52]. I note that this source and the sources in our Immurement article provide a slightly different description and I would not happy with the description in this article being used. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Immurement in Persia section doesn't really cover the asphyxiation method described in the article but rather methods from which the victim dies of dehydration or exposure. I am sure that we can't merge anything because nothing is reliably sourced and merging in unsourced material is not acceptable. We also should not redirect the article because Gatch gereftani fails WP:V and thus cannot be added to the target without confusion. The best we can do is add some text from that source that you helpfully found if you consider it sufficiently reliable. TerriersFan (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe differences are minor. In particular they seem to have had several ways of using 'gatch', a silty expanding sand also referred to as gypsum. I found yet another variant: "The Captains and the Kings Depart: Life in India, 1928-46 - Page 63 Jack Bazalgette - 1984 - Persia had few C class roads in those days, but one followed the best track one could ... When bandits were caught, a tower four or five feet high would be built around them and filled to their necks with gatch or lime plaster." These are all forms of immurement. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_June_29&oldid=1142628445"