Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 November	15 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psych Central

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

It seems to me this article had already been deleted before. It has since been recreated, heavily edited by a single user which has been blocked in the meantime. Notability and objectivity of the article are doubtful, self-promotion is obvious. Midas02 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As to whether or not the article has been previously deleted, this can be determined by looking at the previous AfD, which shows that the article was speedy-deleted for copyvio. This can be verified in the deletion log, link. I looked at the Time (link) article and skimmed the article and the references, and I didn't see the self-promotion problem. Whether founded in 1991 or 1997, it has been around for an Internet eternity and gets attention from various sources over time. Nomination doesn't argue that the topic is not notable. The only issue seems to be G5 speedy deletion. I looked at the history of the primary content contributor, and it is a confusing history in which there is no record available to support the block log, and in particular the SPI archive has nothing relevant. The template on the User page was applied by another editor also implicated as an associated sock. Is the seemingly random use of the word "suicide" self-referential? If the G5 speedy delete argument is applicable, the references and categories should be harvested so that the article can be easily re-created. Unscintillating (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't agree with the nom's assertions. As far as the objectivity of the article's claims, this isn't merely a heavily cited article, it's cited to the point of absurdity. As far as the article being promotional, I'm looking at a bunch of statements of fact, not of puffed-up claims, and the only two cheerleading statements are cited. Beyond that, an article containing a cited criticism of the subject can't really be claimed to be unrelentingly promotional. Insinuating that the creator of the article was a SPA is absurd; he made 1,117 edits to Wikipedia before his block, only 47 of which was to this article.[1]. As far as its notability? Well, quite aside from that Time magazine article naming it one of the 50 best websites on the whole Internet (along with similar kudos from such varied and reliable sources such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Star-Ledger, the Irish Times and the Los Angeles Times), there are 41 different citations, most of them to notable and independent print sources. Did the nom take the slightest stab at WP:BEFORE, as deletion policy requires, and actually check on some of them? This looks more like an IDON'TLIKEIT nomination than anything else; Ravenswing 17:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were many problems surrounding the early stages of this article. I whittled away a large part of it. I disliked the article, but that dislike came from the ordeal that it occasioned to get it where it is now. As much as I felt that way, I couldn't come up with sufficient reason to justify outright deletion, because despite the earlier abundance of citations of useless sources, there's still sufficient good documentation out there demonstrating the site's notability. I can't see that that's changed. As far as the original deletion discussion, that became moot before it was over, so no conclusion can be drawn from it. The speedy deletion was for copyright reasons, and so provides no basis for deleting now. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A top 50 internet site is notable. --do ncr am 17:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Marvel Comics 1

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

Article about a single issue of a comic book magazine, not notable enough for an article of its own. Contents are all almost all plot summaries. FuriousFreddy (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 8 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable issue. Possibly redirect, but it doesn't make sense to redirect to the same title less one character. Madam Fatal (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Issue 1 is non-notable, so redirect to the main Mary Marvel article. Frmorrison (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual issue not sufficiently notable. Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An individual comic issue would have to be pretty special to be encyclopedic, this doesn't appear to be so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Ali Haider

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

Unsourced and not notable album. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Of course we could redirect this to the singer, Ali Haider, but I suspect his article can also be deleted due to lack of reliable sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 7 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BLPDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 01:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Curlo

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

Curlo does not appear to be Notable either via the provided sources or my searches. While there is recognition that one of his companies is #872 for fastest growing in the US, this should not lend Curlo Notability. Most of the sources listed or I've found are Press Releases, reprinted press releases or other first-party created content (submitted an article to a trade org, business listing, etc.). He does not seem to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Perhaps later in life, he should have an article on Wikipedia. But, for now this seemingly autobiographical promotional article does not show this is the time. Stesmo (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:07, 7 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Evaluation of references: #1 a local news blurb, not in depth #2 based on a press release #3 a simply directory listing, no info about the company #8 reprinted press release #9 blog post on social business site, in which company is one of 50 #11 article in which company is one of 5000, each gets short listing #13 blog, although somewhat journalistic; article is not in depth. Conclusion: not notable. LaMona (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion was considered at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 7, with the result being that it was relisted on AfD for an additional two and 1/2 weeks. As there is an absence of consensus to delete, I recommend continued discussion on the talk page if any party wishes to consider a redirect. ^{(non-admin closure)} Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siam–Burma Death Railway (film)

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

Non-notable film, the subject of the film is notable but not this particular documentary BOVINEBOY2008 15:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches of the net find not only no independent RS, but also no record this film was officially released in theaters anywhere. Fails WP:NF. Also note that the name of the user who created this article is the same as that of the cinematographer of the film. Michitaro (talk) 01:12, 13 October 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – To Burma Railway at this time.ShoesssS ^Talk 14:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak Keep per just meeting WP:NF. We have a released documentary film whose production is receiving coverage. IE: Indian Express Dinamalar Being in the Tamil language does not make these sources somehow non-existent (just harder to track down), and notable in Tamil is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Having a "theatrical" release is not a guideline requirement, and documentaries rarely get the same level of coverage as do their big budget-big studio brethren. @Michitaro:, @Shoessss:?? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt meets WP:NF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:18, 23 October 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, Sandstein 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is relisted after being closed, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 7. Sandstein 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what i need to do to correct this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajsankar (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, executed by admin RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 23:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CRESSA Living Concept Collection

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

Company fails notability guidelines (I did an internet search, and nothing turned up), and the article is possibly a bit "spammy". Biblio worm 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of similarities between Undeclared and Freaks and Geeks

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

Non-notable comparison based on two shows having many of the same actors. Unencyclopedic and lacks adequate sources. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Buzzfeed cite was a user contribution and not WP:RS. Actor comparison seems WP:SYNTH. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host for comparison pages. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Leads with a weaselly statement and heads off into original synthesis. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Audy Ciriaco

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

Run of the mill minor league player. Fails GNG Yankees10 03:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Weak Delete~~ Currently a free agent and is ostensibly a non-notable minor leaguer. Did find these though: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] ~~EDIT: Changed vote to Weak Delete.~~ EDIT again: After further reconsideration, changing vote to weak keep. His service time at Triple-A (parts of four years plus two full years) just barely puts him over the top, when the aforementioned sources are also taken into consideration. Alex (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spanneraol (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Article was featured as a DYK. Don't know if that matters. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you might want to hold off on voting then until you determine if that's a good reason for keeping or not.--Yankees10 08:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Right now, I'll say it is a reason to keep. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant sources to pass GNG. Wizardman 15:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL and lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:42, 12 November 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 08:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goverlan VNC Viewer

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

This has been recreated after a PROD once, so we should have a definitive discussion. This article is sourced only to the company's own website. I've looked in the usual places and I cannot find any in-depth coverage of this company that isn't a press release or similar. I think this fails the general notability criteria and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ad created by an editor with obvious COI. No indication of notability. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Goverlan Remote Control Software and WP:Articles for deletion/PJ Technologies for closely related AfD discussions. Another related article by this user, WMIX Software, is currently PROD'ed. Lemnaminor (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the third time this page has been created. Speedied as copyvio in 2012 and PROD'ed in 2014. --Lemnaminor (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unquestionable delete, in particular since the other Goverlan WP articles have been removed for the same reasons. LaMona (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gereltsogt

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

No sources provided, no indication of notability. Also, since only the given names are mentioned, there is no way to actually identify anyone. There may easily be dozens of "noted" khoomii singers in Mongolia going by those names. Latebird (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This does make it hard to find the person in question, mostly because surnames aren't considered important in Mongolia. See Mongolian name#modern. JTdale ^Talk 20:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is far from establishing any notability (which might or might not exist), and, as Latebird points out, it doesn't even manage to refer to any concretely identifiable individual. G Purevdorj (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator and some of the previous comments are making rather too much of the fact that we have only a given name and no surname for the subject. Mongolia is a country with a relatively small population and a wide enough variety of given names that surnames are still not automatically used for identification - and Mongolian name rather suggests that posessors of all but the most common given names (of which Gereltsogt does not seem to be one) number no more than a few thousand each. By the time we have narrowed matters down further by taking into account the rest of the information in the article, I have little doubt that the article and both of these apparently reliable sources are referring to the same individual. Having said that, neither of the sources I have given is exactly substantial, and while I suspect that the subject could fairly easily be proved notable if a search were made for sources in Mongolian - we probably have nobody reading this who is in a position to do this. PWilkinson (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was that simple, then one of us searching for the names and relevant keywords in Mongolian spelling would most likely have been able to identify the people mentioned in the article. A search for Гэрэлцогт хөөмийч turns up two texts, mentioning two distinct khöömii singers named Gereltsogt. Your first source talks about someone who "appears on recordings", and the second one about a private individual (a yak breeder). So we're looking at sources about three or four different people. Which one do you think the article is about?

For illustration, let's transfer the article text into a more familiar cultural context:

Jack is a noted practitioner of Country singing in Tennessee. His brother, John, is also a renowned country singer. Jack is married to Jill.

Tennessee has about twice the population of Mongolia, but the popularity of the artforms and the pervasiveness of the names are roughly similar, so I'm sure you still get the idea. --Latebird (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails for lack of context. Why is this singer notable? A short paragraph tautology is not even a stub. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Last of Us#Adaptations and possible sequel. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of us (film)

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

Doesn't exactly meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but the article has no sources, is most likely non-notable, and is possibly a hoax (namely because of that "made by naughty dog" part). Biblio worm 19:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does have an entry on IMDB, but this fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Last of Us, where the in-development film is already discussed. As Google and GNews searches will bear out, the project is receiving coverage, such as [8][9][10], but I don't see that anything has happened yet that makes a separate article appropriate per WP:NFF. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that The Last of Us (film) (correctly capitalized) has existed as a redirect to The Last of Us#Film adaptation since 7 March 2014.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this three-sentence, unsourced stub as waaaay TOO soon. WHEN the film meets WP:NF, we will be rebuilding a properly sourced article under the proper spelling. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree that its TOOSOON for it to have any article, but if there's sourced, accurate information at another target (the video game), and its a plausible search term, the redirecting is more appropriate than deleting outright. Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Last of Us#Adaptations and possible sequel since The Last of us is a plausible typo and the section in question contains relevant info on the subject.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Last of Us#Adaptations and possible sequel as atm it's all wp:crystal. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 housekeeping non-admin closure: 22:44, 15 November 2014 MusikAnimal (talk | contribs) deleted page Rathin Sinha (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement ... czar ♔ 07:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rathin Sinha

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

Naked autobiography and unambiguous self promotional WP:SPAM. Article has been twice deleted previously... (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rathin Sinha and the deletion log). CSD tag was removed. Reviewing editors are asked not to CSD this article as the author will likely just recreate it again. It appears a full AfD is required to drive a stake through this thing's heart. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and SALT as nom.-Ad Orientem (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby W. Miller

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

Longterm unsourced article by a COI editor that fails the notability and verifiability criteria for WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There appears to be no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Note: the DFC medal is not notable in itself because of its somewhat common nature -- 18238 of them have been awarded. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His accomplishments as a soldier, writer, singer, politician, etc. fail to cross the notability bar. "5-star music CDs" means three and four people rated his two CDs highly in amazon.com. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Biography with nothing that shows the subject passes WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checked his books. At least one is vanity-published. Some publishers I couldn't locate info on. Only one book was found in one library, which means they have had little or no readership. The one reference isn't significant. LaMona (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Alabama, 1992, subject was an unsuccessful candidate for a national legislative seat, as verified by the New York Times, and the Associated Press. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, unsuccessful candidates for a position that is normally notable per WP:POLITICIAN, are redirected to the election which they received the most coverage for, unless the candidate is notable outside of politics.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast:, thanks for those two sources, but the name "Bobby W. Miller" does not appear in them and therefore this page cannot be redirected. If the relevant primary information is added to United States Senate election in Alabama, 1992, then I see is no problem with creating redirects for Bob Miller (1992 Alabama primary candidate) and Margaret Stewart (1992 Alabama primary candidate) (or some such disambiguation). Note: Stewart might actually be notable enough for her own page [11]. But unless the name Bobby W. Miller is referenced by sources on the target page, then a redirect from this page would be improper. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of this article was referred to as Bob Miller, however it can be that they used the non-common name to avoid conflict with the disambiguation page. The subject of this article still meets WP:POLOUTCOMES, and such a redirect is the proper thing to do.

Another references: Daily Kos.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a violation of WP:BLP verifiability and no original research to create a redirect of this page. You have only demonstrated that the name Bob Miller meets WP:POLOUTCOMES. You have not produced a source for Bobby W. Miller. Without a reliable source for this specific name, a redirect of this page would be original research and fail our WP:BLP policy. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 08:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Conversation Prism

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

A single infographic does not meet notability criteria. Article looks somewhat promotional. Shritwod (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 7 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of virtual schools

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

This list doesn't serve any of the purposes of lists given at WP:LISTPURP. It's definitely not a useful source of information. Since the vast majority of entries don't have articles it doesn't serve a navigational purpose. And since the vast majority of entries shouldn't have articles, it doesn't serve an expansion purpose either. The "sources" are practically all primary sources, ie the schools' websites, and many of them are broken, too. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - I should mention that this rationale (which I completely agree with) was taken from the original PROD of the article by Huon, and I didn't feel like re-typing it all. Yes, I am lazy. No, this should not invalidate the AfD. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There will be a large number of virtual schools and colleges that would be clearly notable if they were conventional educational institutions, but where there is difficulty in obtaining sufficient information and sourcing to justify a stand--alone article. A list like this can have the purpose of providing a place for this material: the world is not divided neatly into notable | non-notable, and there can be things worth including in an encyclopedia, but not at article length. Eventually, many of these will be expandable. alternatively, if there are any notable schools of this type the list will serrve a navigational purpose, evben if limited to them. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 13 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't word it much better than DGG. Agree entirely with that argument. JTdale ^Talk 20:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree that it does not serve a useful purpose for expansion or navigation. I just added a fairly major Canadian University with an article to this list. Problems with broken links and lack of secondary sources can be solved and should not be a reason to delete an article. Meters (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but only now that it has been fixed. I can absolutely understand why Primefac would nominate this for deletion based on the state it was in. What a mess! It was primarily a promotional list of non-notable orgs of little value (unless you were promoting your org). I've gone through and fixed the list by removing 200+ non-notable and duplicate entries. Stesmo (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 08:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Dilmaghani

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:NBOX or WP:GNG, or having anything besides WP:ROUTINE coverage. Dea db eef 21:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG and also fails to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 15:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice against speedy renomination. No discussion save for the blocked-as-suspected-sock nominator. --j⚛e decker ^talk 08:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ching's Secret

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

Tagged since 2010 and concerns not attended, possibly because of lack of sources (and notability). Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 8 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helprace

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability criteria under WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. The cited sources after the first one are either self-posted or external links to other products that should be in the article or incidental mentions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - GNG states that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I looked at the current sources:

http://seriousstartups.com/2014/08/10/crashing-trade-show-saved-helprace/ - about Gregory Koldirkaev, not the product.
http://blog.capterra.com/help-desk-software-for-small-business-one-size-doesnt-fit/ compares several products.
http://startup88.com/startups/2014/09/09/helprace-customer-service-software/8143 Paid placement not independent of subject.
http://prmac.com/release-id-68768.htm Paid placement not independent of subject.
http://www.prleap.com/pr/226609/helprace-leads-the-way-to-customer-excellence Paid placement not independent of subject.
http://sphinxsearch.com/info/powered/ Doesn't mention the product.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/PublicServers Trivial mention. It's a wiki about Solr.
http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/PoweredBy Same as above.
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/ukrainian-startups-take-all-19-awards-at-idcee-2014-367961.html trivial mention: "runners-up were help desk software provider Helprace"

I suspect that the article contains the best available resources. Fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as pointed out, the given references don't indicate the subject is notable, and I'm not seeing anything else to indicate otherwise. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Wrong forum. File tagged as orphaned fair use. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Bharatiya Janata Party.png

· Stats)

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

I think it is serious copyvio and source cited is just false and rubbish Shrikanthv (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD is the wrong venue for images. The venue is Wikipedia:Files for deletion. However, the image may be tagged as orphaned fair-use. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tagged as orphaned fair use. If nominator believes it is copyvio/incorrect source they should tag for that additionally, using WP:CSD:F3, F7 or F9, and given the history of the uploader I have to say that seems likely to be the case. This should probably be procedurally closed now. Begoon ^talk 18:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 08:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romilly, Interstellar film character

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

No citations, not notable, poorly written. Popcornduff (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a character not notable outside of the film. It may be possible for Cooper to have his own article; there would be some redundancy, but the different scope would allow a focus on that character. The same goes for CASE/TARS; it seems like there is specific coverage about them in regard to their design and real-world potential and comparison to other robots of science fiction. I just do not see that kind of targeted discussion for Romilly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking separate notability away from the film Interstellar (film). After deletion, Redirect to Interstellar (film)#Plot where readers can learn of the character within context of the film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above, plus this actual titling/phrasing is inappropriate/unlikely for a redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No disagareement with a deletion... but perhaps a potential redirect could perhaps be the slightly sourcable "Romilly (Interstellar)"? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some link with discussions about Romilly's epic ordeal:

http://www.reddit.com/r/interstellar/comments/2m2w12/how_would_romilly_see_the_water_planet_turning/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKAYVjbW0FQ

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/lets-talk-about-romilly-interstellar.454286722/

http://www.firstshowing.net/2014/sound-off-christopher-nolans-interstellar-what-did-you-think/

"The last few notes: David Gyasi as "Romilly" the astrophysicist is one of my favorite characters, especially what he goes through. I enjoy his performance the most"

https://www.tumblr.com/search/interstellar+spoilers+%5C%5C%5C%5C+romilly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miscelanegan (talk • contribs) 10:29, November 17, 2014

The FirstShowing.net reference is not bad, but the rest of the links are not reliable sources, which is needed per the general notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 08:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WMIX Software

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

no reliable secondary sources, no indication of notability. All references, except the Alexa page rank are primary sources. Page created by an editor with a serious COI who contested the proposed deletion without explanation. Other products from this company are currently being discussed in a number of AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goverlan Remote Control Software, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PJ Technologies and WP:Articles for deletion/Goverlan VNC Viewer. Lemnaminor (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the one who placed the proposed deletion tag on this promotional article, which was sourced only to Alexa for page rank and press releases for everything else. Without third party sourcing, this cannot meet the notability guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. A search turned up nothing except for this Windows IT Pro article, which reads like a press release and in any case is not sufficient on its own to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler White (disambiguation)

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

Only two entries. PROD was denied. The solution is to simply put {{for}} on the main article. There is no need for this page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TWODABS. A separate navigational page is not needed where navigation can be accomplished in a hatnote. bd2412 T 17:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's worth adding basketball player Skyler White (mentioned on 2014–15 Idaho Vandals men's basketball team) to the dab page. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not convinced; the basketball player may meet MOS:DABMENTION, but is not notable under WP:NHOOPS or WP:NCOLLATH. Also, it is possible to put two other uses in a hatnote, though this tends to crowd the note. bd2412 T 15:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as there's a third entry meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Boleyn. The third entry now has its own redirect to the relevant article on the player's current team. Lwarrenwiki (talk)
My preferred resolution would be Keep and move to make the dab page primary (with three entries), rather than having a fictional character be primary over a real-life writer. Short of that, as creator of the dab page, I would support either of these two options:

Keep with three entries, or
Delete if we discard the basketball player as non-notable, and put {{for}} on the primary article, exactly as suggested per nom. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no need to remove an navigational article that might be benificial to some users. It does not hurt content and provides an alternative navigation mechanism to the direct links to other articles in the content pages. Agreed that this should be the main redirect of Skyler White as suggest by the person above me. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and change the hatnote on Skyler White to link to the writer. There is no need for the disambiguation because the basketball player is not notable (and has been redirected to the team article). Tavix | Talk 03:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jikkyō Keiba Simulation: Stable Star

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

No indication of notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Weak keep - I'm not sure about this one, really. The reason why I say weak keep is that there is a prospect of expanding it, there's a large enough JaWiki article regarding the game. George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 14:52, 29 October 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) 19:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 29 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Here's the deal. It has no hits or notability in English-language video game reliable sources, and there are no worthwhile redirect targets. However, the jawp article has four sources from 1996. This said, I can't figure out what they are for the life of me. If they are articles in magazines that someone can get, what do they cover? The jawp has no footnotes so I don't know if it's an ad or a full article or something else. If they're reviews, I could see this sticking around but until then... please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 16:07, 11 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 18:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Tytgadt

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

False information about a non-public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeblue blueorange (talk • contribs) 18:47, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

Not notable, only one citation that doesn't even have the information that's in the article.Pgold009 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This discussion was created without a template and never transcluded to a daily log. Addition to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 6 is its first proper listing. The creation of this AfD is the above editor's only activity under that account.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 16:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this is not a good article by any stretch, but the subject is notable. Bloomberg confirms the information in this article. A quick google search turns up a number of potential references (mainly in the Belgian press), for example: [12], [13], [14] --Lemnaminor (talk) 14:39, 7 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the sake of this discussion I will assume the article is correct. Nothing about the positions this person has held or the level of coverage they have received from the media causes them to rise to the level of being notable. Being the head of a non-notable company does not make one notable. Even the heads of most notable businesses are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable (WP:NBUSINESS). Quis separabit? 15:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard d'Ascoli

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

Unsourced BLP. Doubtful notability as the nearly 8k Google hits boil down to only 214 unique hits. beside that, the article has been removed three times already for promotion and copyvio The Banner talk 12:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... and nearly 20 million Google hits for Barack Obama boil down to only 269 "unique hits", as you are interpreting the term. Past a certain point, long before it has identified all duplicates, Google generally stops looking unless you refine your search. Having said that, sources (beyond his web page and Debrett's entry) definitely are needed - with a third place in the Leeds International Piano Competition (even if back in 1981), I have little doubt that d'Ascoli is notable (and Obama too, for different reasons) but sifting out substantial reliable reviews or other sources from passing mentions of future appearances does tend to be trickier for concert pianists than for Presidents of the United States, and I can only hope that someone else has more time to do this than I do at the moment. PWilkinson (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can find many articles announcing his performances, and some reviews following them. The article needs references, but with a fair amount of time commitment they can be added. So I say keep but leave a banner about references. Question, though: does there need to be a reference for each city that he has played in? That means digging into local papers, and I'm not sure how much it adds to the article. LaMona (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I did add a few references, mainly to the competition he won and a review of a London performance. LaMona (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concert review adds, to my opinion, absolutely nothing. Okay, we have two sources now, but I can not say that these convince me of his notability. The Banner talk 00:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concert reviews will be the main resources for living classical musicians. The review "circuit" for musicians is like the review "circuit" for restaurants - it's the medium through which their work becomes known. Except for some humongous stars, like Pavarotti, you will not find non-review articles about them. In fact, there's little use writing about a musician who tours except when that musician arrives in your area and people have a chance to hear him. It is possible that you are trying to apply criteria from another topic area, but in this environment reviews are key. LaMona (talk) 16:42, 13 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ample coverage of his career, passes GNG. Examples:[15][16][17] Odd that this article didn't mention one of the most distinctive things about him: that he's been blind since the age of 3, and (according to this source) was "the first blind prizewinner of a major international piano competition". --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BARE - it passes GNG by having reliable sources, but in no way is this "ample". Bearian (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhary Group

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

Food industry company with dubious corporate notability as per lack of sources. Of the several sources presented most relate to its product Wai Wai, which interestingly does not have a page. If not deleted, an alternative could be to transform it to a Wai Wai article and the little information about the company may be added to the article of its president. Please participate at the discussion. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Forbes article on Binod Chaudhary (here) describes Chaudhary Group as including "a controlling stake in Nepal's Nabil Bank, a fast growing foods business best known for instant noodle brand Wai Wai and a string of hotels in Asia and more recently, in Africa where in a joint venture with Uganda's Mukwano group he's building hotels in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. Last year, CG diversified into telecom when it bought out ST Telecom, a rural telecom operator." That sounds notable to me. Worth remembering that an English-language Google search is a poor indicator of notability for a Nepalese corporation.
The nominator has since been blocked as the sockpuppet of a permanently-banned editor and is thus unlikely to expand on his deletion rationale. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:27, 12 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per User:Suriel1981 -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:COMPANY. Seems to be a worthy topic for an article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Build Library Here (or else!)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnotable album: the artiste is also up for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagan Wanderer Lu. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Academy of Pediatrics. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Safety Camp

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

Zero references, and I'm not sure the fact that Jim Pirri is in it is a valid assertion of notability, the rest of the cast is red linked. I think a mention at Jim's article would be sufficient. Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. It's verifiable as a teaching aid and not something for wide for-profit distribution.[18][19] It might be mentioned within the article on American Academy of Pediatrics as one of their programs, but it lacks the level of notability required by guideline. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Schmidt. Peterborough Street (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with merging relevant information into American Academy of Pediatrics. Peterborough Street (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Academy of Pediatrics - could potentially warrant a mention there, particularly if a short section describing TIPP can be created. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me... Kristen Everetta: The Great Gazoo (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice.

Merge to American Academy of Pediatrics as per AdventurousSquirrel--Cailil ^talk 13:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 15:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libre Clothing

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

apparent advertising DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see anything problematic with the article. There are many sources cited, covering a period of several years (passing GNG) and the tone doesn't seem terribly promotional. Mabalu (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with DGG that it seems promotional. Not in the vein of "this is the greatest company/product ever!" but because it reads as product description, more than information about the company. However, I don't think it reaches the level of blatant advertising, and is more in need of re-writing than deletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I think you kind of need to know what the products are in order to understand what the company is about. These aren't just ordinary clothes, but garments that serve a specific medical purpose, and have specific requirements, so some description is required. Mabalu (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments there. Perhaps the reorganizing the article might help. As it is, there's all this product information in the lede, followed by a short history section. What if we made the lede much shorter, followed by the history section, and then a product section. Thens we should remove such words as "comfortable", unless they have been described as such in an independent review. The source where that claim comes from appears to parrot a press release. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I also agree that there are some minor issues with promotional language, but the main issue is that the company seems to be marginally notable, and doesn't need to be rewritten or anything to address those issues. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of widows and widowers

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

A highly WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Just because someone's spouse has died doesn't mean it has to be tracked into one article. None of this is even sourced. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This will be a forever incomplete list, as I'd probably say that the amount of widows and widowers with articles on Wikipedia are staggering- probably in the thousands at the very least. Not only would that make for a difficult page to create, but the article would take forever to load. This isn't even touching the issue that the page so far seems to focus on American and European people only and looks to be focusing on fairly recent people as well. I don't know that this would even make for a good category for the same reason, as we'd have to start slicing it down to "American widows" and so on, and even then there are issues. What if you have an American woman who married a Russian man? Would she be an American widow? A Russian widow? (Probably American, but still- people would debate this.) It's just indiscriminate, like Snuggums said. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we don't have categories like "Married American actors", after all. We do have Category:Married couples, but that seems to be for articles about people who are notable for working in a pair. That brings up the issue of what would happen if we had a category for widow/ers and had a page where it's about the couple. I understand what they're trying to do here and if there was an easier way to go about doing it I'd support it, but I just don't see where this is really feasible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as way, way, way too indiscriminate. Lots of married people would qualify, especially in the days before commonplace divorces. Plus it's rarely a significant distinction, other than "black widows/widowers" who murder their spouses. List of divorced people or list of blondes would be just as useless. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT as way too broad and indiscriminate a topic. Sideways713 (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information that could never possibly be improved to be of encyclopaedic value. As for the list itself, the first thing that came to mind when thinking of entries was notable widows or widowers in fiction, which doesn't appear to be at all representative of what's there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete A list of every notable person whose spouse predeceased them is wildly indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE says all we need to know for this AfD. Would we want a list of married persons? Unmarried persons? Divorced persons? Remarried persons? No, no, no, no and, uh, no. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a caveat. As currently constituted the list makes no sense. In fairness, though, it should be noted that the creator of the list had a more specific purpose in mind: as initially drafted, the idea was to make a list of "list of widows and widowers whose widowhood contributed to their notability", and among the first entries were people like Maria Elena Holly and Mary Bono Mack whose notability was (arguably) due to their representing the legacy of a famous spouse. [20] This was changed a couple of years later to the present unmanageable criterion. [21] But even as originally defined, I have doubts the list could be well-managed. How you decide if someone is "notable for being a widow(er)"? Our usual answer would be to require each entry to have a reliable source making that specific statement about the subject. But beyond a few obvious cases like Mrs. Holly , I don't know that we are likely to find such clear statements. Even someone like Billie Jean Horton, best known for her energetic efforts on behalf of the legacy of her two famous husbands, also had a career of her own. This is even more of an issue for political widow(er)s: Mary Bono Mack, for example, was certainly known first as Sonny's wife, but then (like many other political spouses) she was repeatedly elected in her own right and spent 14 years in Congress, it's not obvious that she belongs on this list, although a more specific List of politicians who succeeded their late spouse in office might work (preferably someone can come up with a less awkward title). If someone wants to make a case for restoring the original criteria, I'd be willing to listen, but I'm skeptical. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any notable person who dies after his/her spouse can potentially be included on this list, so it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 08:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coolhouse Productions

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

1 ref and its not about the company. CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it is, sort of. It's about a game that the company created, so that does show some notability for them as they can gain notability via the products that they create and release. However I do want to stress that one source is not enough to show notability, so the one source doesn't really accomplish much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find sources on Google News except for one article in a foreign language which did not seem likely to amount to much. II | (t - c) 05:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:29, 30 October 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) 13:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 30 October 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 03:52, 7 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence has been provided in the past two weeks showing that this company is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches turn up no evidence of notability, nor does the solitary ref review of a product by the firm provide that. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 08:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom Communications

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

Only 2 refs, and their about the company's event not the company itself. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the sourcing here is primary, and the two legitimately reliable refs are about the TV series rather than the company that created it — meaning that while they might support an article about the show, they don't confer notability on the show's producer. Also likely WP:COI, given that the article was created by User:Rhettzoom. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 30 October 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 03:55, 7 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. This is a video production company specializing in Canadian chuckwagon racing. We need strong evidence of notability, which is so far lacking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Divine Comedy (band). (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart 'Pinkie' Bates

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

Notabe only for being apart of The Divine Comedy, largely unsourced BLP. Fails WP:NBAND Murry1975 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge & Redirect – To The Divine Comedy (band). ShoesssS ^Talk 18:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 31 October 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 03:49, 7 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Divine Comedy (band) per paragraph at the end of WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 69 Eyes discography. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bump 'n' Grind (The 69 Eyes album)

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

Quite clearly non-notable. Laun chba ller 18:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Music Google found no sources outside of this aside from it being on sale at Amazon and lyrics sites. The fact that it was released by a major band does not count as "an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."--Church ^Talk 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references in Google Books (such as Le Rock de A a Z dictionnaire illustre 1984 p.318) refer to Bump 'n' Grind (Jackson Heights album), a classic album recently reissued in Japan, not to this album. But then this is a Finnish band and a debut album by a notable Finnish band is going to be more difficult to dig up sources than a 2014 album. This is 1992 and we are already biased enough to WP:RECENT to not be deleting articles simply because 1992 is pre-Internet. The Italian Heavy Metal book in the article sources only lists this debut album while giving full coverage to two later better selling albums, but debut articles are still interesting and we wouldn't be deleting this one, we'd only be merging to a The 69 Eyes discography article anyway. What's the point? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at it.wp fi.wp sv.wp Italiano Suomi Svenska articles don't reveal more sources, but do suggest that this is not just an en.wp topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 6 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The 69 Eyes discography per WP:NALBUM - " Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". No prejudice against recreation if the notability In ictu oculi assumes can be demonstrated but an article consisting of a track listing is of no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suriel1981 do you know how to merge a cover jpg into a band article? What about the rest of Category:The 69 Eyes albums? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cover photo is a non-free image - it will have to be deleted if there is no article for it to illustrate. I don't know what is likely to happen to the rest of the articles in that category. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The 69 Eyes discography. Not significant discussion of the album presented in RSs. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AdventurousSquirrel I wonder are Finnish newspaper arts pages from 1992 online anywhere? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the argument I think you're trying to make, and I agree that you have a worthwhile goal in mind, but the supposition that RSs covering this album in nontrivial detail exist in printed format is entirely hypothetical at this stage, right? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. COI or not, there is consensus that the subject does not meet GNG. As a few people did mention, the subject's business might be a viable topic, so then this title could possibly be recreated as a redirect to that §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Minter

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

It is just a few articles about his struggle to keep his mother's killers in jail. There is little significant coverage. Adam in MO Talk 03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly, the restaurant he owns is notable. On the other matter, he is a person who suffered an unspeakable personal tragedy as a child, and deserves our individual compassion. But that horrific crime he witnessed, and his entirely understandable response, do not make him notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fast Keep this topic is about Jason minter as a person. His cafe is notable because of him not other way around. The crime scene is not one time event. It is continuously brought up so it has become notable revolving around Jason Minter. Jason Minter is also producer of The Sopranos. Producer of a show like that is also notable person not inheriting notability, notable as a person. He also appeared in one episode. See his imdb page [22] he has also worked on Men in Black movie, The Tic Code and other shows! Some one working on many productions, have a cafe that is notable because of him (see reference) and have personal event notability is notable person on 3 counts. Google search is full of newspaper reports of data of these 3 counts and 21 google news results, 43 book results. So person is notable. One more thing. The Sopranos episode D-Girl (The Sopranos) had redlink of this person. I created this topic from there. So the user who put red link also think this person is notable so he can have own topic. This can be consensus. Adamfinmo do not delete anything from topic till this debate is complete. Reference you remove was about show and cafe. More references relate Jason to cafe and show. Everything has reference in biography of living person. So do not remove. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't a producer on the show, and notability arguments based on policy like WP:DIRECTOR are stronger than a redlink. IMDB isn't an RS (especially for a BLP). Widefox; talk 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Each claim has reliable source not imdb. IMDB is in external link and it was added by AuthorAuthor. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those google search hits aren't even all about him. Widefox; talk 18:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are about him. These are reliable sources in this topic about Jason, his work, his cafe [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cafe would be a different article (redlinked already). Notability is not WP:INHERITED for him based on the cafe, or the other actors in the episode (I've removed them, and both those sources fail verification). (see below about BLP1E for his notability based on the event). Widefox; talk 15:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Subject is quoted often by reliable sources and has been the subject of multiple articles as well as by This American Life. Article needs work but that does not make the subject less notable for Wikipedia. Meets WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, article has improved, but he doesn't appear to have a major role passing WP:DIRECTOR. Widefox; talk 22:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR: WP:TOOSOON he was one of several associate producers. He was not the producer as previously stated here - which I've corrected. I don't think he's notable enough for an article being an associate producer (he wasn't the exec producer but just one of the 10-15 others), and only for 21 of 86 episodes along with all the other associate producers on other episodes. His role in the one episode was a Bellman, not a main part (not on first billed list). Article fails WP:V - his title was wrong (and exaggerated his role), we use a primary for his birth, the interview with him is a primary. The restaurant may be notable but not him (yet). Article seems a WP:COATRACK - an almost notable BLP that is used to hang the restaurant and views. If we look at WP:BLP1E for the tragedy, that fails too. Widefox; talk 21:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to closing admin: There's overwhelming behavioural evidence that there's a massive undisclosed paid editor sockfarm, some linked to Fiverr (see WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez and ANI), with the MO that socks popup on AfDs with Keeps that are waffly / not policy based arguments. Some of the editors have disclosed being paid from Fiverr, others not. Widefox; talk 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware what I had walked into, Widefox. Based on points made by you and other editors, I am swayed to change to Delete. AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentUser widefox is following my activity on wikipedia without evidence. He has failed to prove anything and now he is here to tag my edit where ever possible. This is harassment because he thinks I am related to subject it can not still change that subject is notable and what AuthorAuthor said before his prejudice is correct. This subject is notable. If Widefox has concern about me he should report me to admin and not waste every one's time here. The wikipedia user who reported me "Rahat" has withdrawn his report at conflict of interest notice board because he also agrees with me. --TheSawTooth (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was not the "producer", but an "associate producer" - the undo [38] repeats the claim which is not supported by the sources. (disruptive editing issues commented here TheSawTooth) Widefox; talk 11:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made correction of associate. You had done other tagging I will not restore that because you are harassing. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on edits (and notability), not editors here, thank you. Widefox; talk 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to speak of AuthorAuthor's comment before Widefox put prejudice in his head that this topic is coming in reliable sources again and again so it is ok with WP:GNG. Birth date is ok about primary but I think AuthorAuthor added birth. I used reliable sources. He is an associate producer and reliable sources are talking about him but not about all other associate producer. Trying to discredit me will not discredit guideline and when reliable source is present you can edit the article if there is concern but deleting it is against policy because it is notable. So I move to suggest to the admin that he should see reliable sources in this page before deleting it. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with some sources failing verification and the article being promotional I've addressed on the talk page. Widefox; talk 01:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- we do not usually emphasize criminal matters to this extent, and the associate producer role is not notable at all; however, I think it possible that his cafe is notable, and if it has been covered outside NYC there might be grounds for an article on it. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Es Downey

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

I don't think every person who ever appeared in any professional sports match is, by that fact alone, notable. There's nothing to distinguish this one. I'm not marking it for speedy deletion because the guideline specifically for Australian football is pretty low. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass WP:NOT.Shashanksinghvi334 (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the long and well established consensus that playing in the highest level of a sport is notable. WT:NSPORTS is the place to argue against it if you don't like it. And if you don't pass NOT (any particular part of NOT, or just the vibe of it?), then is that a double negative meaning it IS suitable for inclusion? The-Pope (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting here to repeat that there is no such consensus regarding WT:NSPORTS and notability. In fact, the pages specifically say that no consensus has been reached. They also say that the criteria that someone played in an Australian football game does not mean that the page must be kept as notable. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the notability guidelines for Aussie Rules footballers set out at WP:NAFL. Since he played in the 40's there's unlikely to be a plethora of online sources, but there is a reference given that lends credence. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NAFL. The guideline for Australian rules football is no lower than the other codes of football. Subject played at the highest level. Jevansen (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAFL (1). Dea db eef 05:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NAFL. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NAFL. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Taylor

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

Not notable. This fits a minimum guideline on WP:Notability-sports because he played in the Victorian Football League, but there's no other reason why he'd be notable, and I don't think every single person who appeared in any professional sporting event is, by that fact, notable. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the long and well established consensus that playing in the highest level of a sport is notable. WT:NSPORTS is the place to argue against it if you don't like it. The-Pope (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WT:NSPORTS says there is not a consensus that appearance in a single competitive match justifies notability. If this person was a particularly notable player, then the page should say that with WP:RS. If the page is so-modified I will self-revert my deletion proposal. Djcheburashka (talk)

Keep played 41 games in the VFL, the highest level Australian rules football competition. Meets WP:NAFL. Jevansen (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAFL does not say that anyone who played in Australian football is notable. It says that someone who played may be notable. Someone in the last few weeks seems to have gone in and tried to create bare-bones entries for, apparently, dozens, if not every, player in the Australian football league, ever, almost all of those articles cited only to the Encyclopedia of Australian Football (or whatever its called). Is that really what we want? Djcheburashka (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me, and the number is in the vicinity of about 2000. We have thousands of articles on tiny towns and cities, is that what we want? The idea of an encyclopedia is to contain encyclopedic knowledge, and you aren't going to be interested in every article. That doesn't reduce its' notability or relevance. There are numerous more references for these players if you want to go digging through scanned newspapers. Terlob (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And we still have another 4000 or so to go. And on a lot of these stubs, myself, Jevansen and others have already added more (referenced) info, whether it be more personal (family connections), more football achievements or details of their pre/post football life. Once the article exists, adding the info is easy. Creating the article is hard. And you are completely misreading the NSPORT guideline, it says that such a player is likely to be notable enough for an article, and is really designed to avoid wasting our time on this board defending articles, on these fully referenced/verified generally non-BLP stub articles.The-Pope (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There exists here on Wikipedia a strong working consensus that professional athletes who have competed at the highest level of a professional sport are notable. I support that working consensus. To answer Djcheburashka's question about whether we want dozens of "bare-bones" articles about Australian football players, cited to a reliable encyclopedia about that sport, then my answer is "Yes", that is precisely what we want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NAFL. And I agree with Cullen 328 re what we want Wikipedia to be. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NAFL and I second the seconding of what Cullen328 said. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merna Mora

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

What makes this notable? Djcheburashka (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes it notable is the two references now in the article, plus significant coverage of this 130,000 acre sheep station in many books shown in a Google Books search. Instead of deleting this article (always the last resort), it should be expanded and improved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Australian stations are the social and historical equivalent of unincorporated areas in the USA. By US example there are 1,719 unincorporated communities in Kentucky. Every one of these has a WP article - most articles are smaller and have fewer citations than has Merna Mora. The Merna Mora article is a recently created stub, but it is adequately referenced. The subject has a history going back to the 1890s and has a significant position geographically and within the modern outback enviro-tourism industry. A Google search confirms its social currency. The fact that the proponent for deletion is not familiar with the subject is not a reason for deletion on a question of notability. The fact that the proponent obviously nominated this for deletion with no further research to confirm lack of notability is more of a worry. If the proponent is serious about this, then there are 1,057 articles on unincorporated communities in Texas, or 2,660 articles on unincorporated communities in Virginia, many of them one-liners, that should receive attention before worrying about the notability of Australian stations. John beta (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per argument above. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle orthodoxy

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

Long term stub with merge proposal, no sources and not particularly notable as something distinct from neo-Calvinism ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was something posted on the talk page five years ago indicating usage of the phrase, but that seems more naturally to fit into the Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer article. St Anselm (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect it to Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose to Redirect to Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer since Middle orthodoxy is a concept that is not unique to Berkouwer. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing for a complete delete of the article with no redirect for the term at all? The "form of neo-Calvinist theology" claim is unreferenced, and there is NO MENTION of "Middle orthodoxy" or of Berkouwer in the Neo-Calvinism article. You cannot redirect Middle orthodoxy to an article that does not mention the subject of the redirect! However, the Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer article DOES mention Middle orthodoxy. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am. There is nothing to establish notability of this term such that an article or entry is justified. If the subject is notable, that's one thing... however even within the Berkouwer article, there are no references associated. If it is notable, then lets get some sources in the Berkouwer article, and talk about a redirect at that point. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that an article is not justified - but if the term exists someone might search Wikipedia for it. Rather than finding nothing, surely it is better for the searcher to be redirected to Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (an article which mentions the phrase, and which can be used as a start point for other articles like Neo-Calvinism) rather than finding nothing? You yourself have said the term/concept exists and has at least some connection to Berkouwer. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for the term turns up little or no references... even outside of Wikipedia. I don't think that a name space for this term is justified. My vote for delete stands. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:per ReformedArsenal (talk · contribs) deletion rationale. I have no idea of why the article should be Redirected to Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer simply because the author of the article mention it in the article (a claim that was not adequately sourced). However, since no reliable sources establish the fact that Middle orthodoxy is a concept unique to Berkouwer, I strongly oppose such redirect. Wikicology (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 08:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Films (A Division of Baba Arts Ltd)

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

Advert for non-notable studio founded by non-notable guys, and for their films. Orange Mike | Talk 00:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG at this point in time. MarnetteD|Talk 03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete While their body of work appears verifiable in reliable sources,[39][40] they do not as a company have the coverage to meet WP:COMPANY. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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