Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 October	21 October >

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 speedy close. Discussion now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Leve. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Gross

AFD withdrawn, in order to merge with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Leve UW Dawgs (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. w/o prejudice to the judicious inclusion of material from this article at Pangram. Ping me if you need a copy. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of pangrams

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

I really don't think we need this list. It is mostly comprised of nonsense phrases thought up by people who apparently find this sort of thing terribly clever. I suspect removing this will be an uphill battle, but I would point out the following:

Most of the items on the list do not have references attached. This implies that their inclusion is based on original research.
Many of the entries are nonsense phrases. While they may in fact use every letter of the alphabet they are not actually coherent sentences in the form of English that real people actually use. I therefore would assert that having a long list of them does not help the reader to understand the concept of a pangram.
We have an article on pangrams. Listing a few coherent examples there should be sufficient.
And that leads us to the very long list of pangrams that aren't even in English. What service does it provide our readers to show them a pangram in Cherokee, or Malay, or for the love of God, Klingon or in country codes?
In short, while the may be an appropriate place for such a list on some Wikimedia project, I do not believe this is something that should be on the English Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please note that if this is deleted there is also the subpage Talk:List of pangrams/More pangrams which contains another 84 examples. I tried to bundle it with this nom but a notice sprang up saying that would have to be done at MFD. I don't think that's right as if the main article is deleted it would be a page dependent on a deleted page and subject to speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a text-book example of an indiscriminate list. New pangrams can be created on the nonce, and existing (unintended) ones can be found in books and on the web. It is therefore impossible (not to mention undesirable) to create a list of every pangram, and there is no other inclusion criteria suggested or easily brought to mind. Cnilep (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cnilep. (If the article gets deleted, the talk subpage Talk:List of pangrams/More pangrams will be eligible for speedy deletion.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Redirect Topic is covered adequately by Pangram, a few notable examples could be included in a table, or the entry could just be Deleted --Lfrankblam 17:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment Although this article probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's rules, I found the article to be very useful. Maybe there could be some way of better organizing this (or trimming it down) so that it would meet the standards while retaining at least some of the information. CarnivorousBunny^{talk • contribs} 00:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I find it useful" is generally not considered a valid argument against deletion unless you can explain why it is useful, not just for you but to the general public, our readers. If you could explain why having a long list (that is mostly gibberish to the average English speaker) serves our readers better than just having a few examples (that are not gibberish) in the main article on pangrams that would be a more compelling line of argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- To add my 2 cents, I arrived on this page as I was looking for a list of russian pangrams as exercises in reading and writing the cyrillic alphabet. Whether it is in keeping with Wikipedia's purpose I don't know, but I certainly found it useful.86.22.92.177 (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aside from the question of bullpen catchers in general (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade), this individual has received significant coverage per the GNG. Cerebellum (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cilladi

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

Bullpen catchers aren't inherently notable, and this one doesn't seem to have the sources to pass GNG (I wouldn't consider the one source in the article to be a strong RS). Wizardman 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source in the article is a pretty substantial profile of him and it is a reliable source. Spanneraol (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quality over quantity. That is one heck of a feature article on a reputable sports site. I am willing to make an exception and count that one source as the requisite "significant coverage" to meet GNG. Go Phightins! 01:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One piece of significant coverage isn't enough for GNG. I'd think that if this LA bullpen catcher was notable, he'd have coverage in the LA Times. He doesn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Alex (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite what others claim, bullpen catchers aren't coaches any more than a batting practice pitcher is a coach. Also, since when does one article on a team-specific site constitute "significant coverage" for purposes of passing GNG? Some of you guys just make up the rules as you go along. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think that one piece we're talking about does constitute a piece of "significant coverage", because it does significantly cover him. That said, you have a good point about it being a "team-specific site". More specifically, it's True Blue LA, which is the Dodgers-specific site within SB Nation. According to GNG, notability often requires multiple sources, but in some cases can be based on one source alone. If this was the LA Times, I'd say one source of that nature might be enough to make the individual notable. However, as it's only a team-specific site within SB Nation, I require more than just the one source to say this individual has met GNG. And as I pointed out above, LA Times, which you would reasonably think would cover the guy, has nothing of the sort on him. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BASEBALL/N states that if the person ever appeared in a Major League Baseball at least once, then the player is notable. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question TheQ Editor, what is your point since the subject of this discussion has never appeared in a MLB game?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TonyTheTiger: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article says (and [1]) that he is the bullpen catcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers and they are part of the MLB. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 22:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - My understanding of the word appearance is to mean as a batter, fielder or pitcher during at least one pitch of the regular or post season.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - @TonyTheTiger: Although it doesn't say that, I'll just use WP:COMMONSENSE and believe that what you are saying is right. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 19:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This player is covered in the roster of players --Lfrankblam 17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
Keep one good source is sufficient, IMO. What matters to me is whether content that establishes notability can be sourced. It does not matter how many sources are used.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One story on a team site now constitutes "significant coverage" for purposes of meeting GNG? You've got to be kidding. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourcing that are pointing to a subject being notable is enough, here we have it.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We decided the issue of bullpen catchers long ago. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Williams for example. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Contrary to the above, nothing has been "decided" regarding bullpen catchers. The above AfD was a 6-4 keep! back in 2007, with multiple keep! voters using their own made-up interpretation of BASE/N. I have provided all sorts of proof that bullpen catchers aren't considered coaches by MLB, which certain people here are ignoring. If bullpen catchers were coaches, they would 1) count against MLB's seven-coach limit (which they currently do not), 2) have "coach" in their title, like EVERY OTHER COACH IN MLB, and 3) generate sufficient media citations such that BASE/N would be irrelevant, because the subjects would pass GNG. Not a single Wiki page for a current MLB pitching coach, hitting coach, bench coach, first base coach, third base coach, or bullpen coach is relying on BASE/N to justify the Wiki page's existence — every single one of them passes GNG based on media coverage. If bullpen catchers were really coaches, they, too, would generate huge amounts of media coverage, which all of these guys lack. (There are five pending AfDs for bullpen catchers, and not a one of them passes GNG based on media citations, which should tell us something about their notability.) It's time to use some common sense here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Dodgers site lists him as a coach. If they did not consider him a coach they would list him with the other staff. [2]. If the Dodgers consider him one of their coaches then he is. Rlendog (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since GNG no longer applies I withdraw this. Wizardman 01:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: to substitute for Wizardman. Otherwise I'm creating an article on my grandma who had a similar profile done regarding her garden club activities in 1989.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I am closing this as keep to maintain consistency with other bullpen catchers (see rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade). However, my argument there was based on consensus, and consensus here is unclear: 4 editors (including the nominator) for deletion and four opposed, because two editors (Muboshgu and EBY) commented here but not on the other articles. For the other articles (not counting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Cilladi since it met GNG) there are five editors arguing keep (Alex, Kinston eagle, Spanneraol, Rlendog, and Pennsylvania Penguin) and two arguing delete (Wizardman and Bbny-wiki-editor). I still think the consensus is that bullpen catchers are coaches because Muboshgu and EBY did not base their arguments on WP:NBASEBALL, but if anyone objects I recommend holding a discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (sports), coming up with a broad consensus, and then relisting these articles if appropriate. Cerebellum (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Butts

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

Bullpen catchers aren't inherently notable, and this one doesn't seem to have the sources to pass GNG. Wizardman 21:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one was/is actually mentioned on the team's coaches page. Alex (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on the coaches page doesn't make him a coach. They just do that rather than have a separate "Bullpen catcher" section for one person. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you keep saying, a bullpen catcher is part of as teams coaching staff... they are the lowest members of the staff but they are definitely part of the coaching staff, which is why they are listed on the official coach roster.Spanneraol (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you're talking about, and you've never been able to cite anything to back up your claim that a bullpen catcher is an official coach. Doesn't it seem strange to you that the word "coach" doesn't appear in the title, like it does for every other ACTUAL coach on an MLB roster? And if bullpen catchers are coaches, how come they generally wear numbers like #87 and #95, rather than normal numbers like the other (actual) coaches? Bullpen catchers are the bullpen equivalent of a batboy: They're support staff who serve a role during the game and just happen to wear a uniform. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that doesnt know what they are talking about. The team lists them as coaches on the website (with the accompanying bio), they are introduced with the coaching staff when they do on field introductions before opening day or playoff games, and when the team puts out a press release stating the coaching staff before the season they include the bullpen catcher as part of that list.[3][4][5] Spanneraol (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're either being deliberately obtuse or deliberately dishonest. Mark Salas and Henry Blanco are former MLB catchers, so they're not typical bullpen catchers, and it's not surprising that they would be considered a de facto part of the coaching staff by the rest of the actual coaches. (You should also note that Blanco actually has the title "coach.") Alan Butts, on the other hand, is a support staffer along the lines of a batboy. He answers *to* the bullpen COACH. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the quickest examples i could find, there are plenty of others from other teams. Here the Braves are referring to Butts as part of the coaching staff.Spanneraol (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A social media intern posting a tweet is what you consider to be proof of Butts' status? You can't be serious. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a number of different things calling them coaches, but since you refuse to accept any of them because it doesnt jibe with your completely arbitrary world view... why bother? Spanneraol (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You haven't managed to post a single citation in support of your bizarre position that bullpen catchers are coaches. If your claim was true, you'd be able to find hundreds and hundreds of sources for it, just as there are THOUSANDS of sources out there for "first base coach" and "pitching coach" and "bullpen coach." By rule, MLB teams can have only one manager and seven coaches in uniform for games, and bullpen catchers don't count against that limit. Therefore, they're not coaches. If they were coaches, they'd count against the coach limit. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed multiple examples of teams referring to them as coaches. You just ignore them. Spanneraol (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Wizardman 12:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong You've semi-dishonestly posted a couple links that talk about former major leaguers being referred to as de facto members of the coaching staff, which makes sense because they were veteran major leaguers. (One of your examples also has the word "coach" in his title, so it wasn't even an appropriate example.) Alan Butts, meanwhile, was added to the staff as support staff and he acts as support staff. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you are dense. I posted press releases from teams introducing their coaching staffs, which included bullpen catchers... they were from multiple teams not all of which involved former major leaguers... I can add even more of that sort of link... nothing dis-honest about it. I also mentioned that they are introduced during on-field introductions as part of the coaching staff. They are also included on the website as coaches, despite your insistence (without any evidence of the sort) that the team doesnt really mean coach when they say coach. Your insistence that the rules about the number of coaches that are in the dugout somehow means that they arent coaches doesnt even fly cause they arent in the dugouts and teams often employ additional coaches that dont have on-field duties. Spanneraol (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You can't win on the merits so you're descending into insults. I've explained multiple times why bullpen catchers are listed on the roster. Pregame introductions mean nothing; all sorts of personnel are introduced during such ceremonies, including lower-level medical and athletic training staffers who don't have Wiki pages and who would be laughed off Wiki if anyone tried to create pages for them. Please read this and then count the number of coaches on the "manager and coaches" pages you keep relying on. In almost every case, you'll see that the bullpen catcher is the eighth or ninth guy listed, which means he's not, by MLB's definition, a coach. (The article says "in the dugout" but it should have said "on the field"; obviously, the bullpen coach doesn't sit in the dugout, but he counts against the seven-coach limit.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to be wrong, Bbny-wiki-editor. Admitting it is the first step. Alex (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, coming from you, since you're probably the world's expert on being wrong in a baseball AfD. (For the new people here, Alex is probably the all-time leader in being wrong in baseball AfDs.) But, anyway, I'd be happy to admit I was wrong if anyone could show that I am wrong. You guys haven't offered anything to refute the fact that bullpen catchers aren't coaches. You just keep making silly arguments about pregame introductions and random press releases. If you guys were right, there should be hundreds and hundreds of citations to support your position, just like there are hundreds and hundreds of citations for first base coaches and hitting coaches and bullpen coaches. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbny, in the pre-game introudctions they introduce the coaches as one group, different from the other people... and you just offered your OPINION, with no evidence to back it up, as to why they are listed as coaches... the teams have additional coaches that arent part of the on the field coaching staff often. You just refuse to listen to reason, and have nothing to back up your claim. Spanneraol (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about pregame introductions. I just linked an ESPN.com story, from one of the sport's best-known writers, that should have cleared this whole thing up for you, and yet here you are, arguing the same nonsense. Also, "coaches that aren't part of the on-field coaching staff" aren't presumed to be notable, per BASE/N, so you're wrong about that, too. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "Being mentioned on the coaches page doesn't make him a coach. They just do that rather than have a separate "Bullpen catcher" section for one person." But the Braves page lists both coaches, which includes Butts, and other staff. [6]. So if they didn't consider Butts a coach they would just list him with the other staff. And even if they did not have that separate section for other staff, I am not sure what the basis is for your comment. Rlendog (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant coverage. His mentions from the AJC seem to be routine and not in depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite what others claim, bullpen catchers aren't coaches any more than a batting practice pitcher is a coach. Also doesn't pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability - found references that subject exists, and has that job. Nothing more. EBY (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Team lists him as a coach, so he's a coach. No reason to intentionally create red links on all these team roster pages by deleting bullpen catchers.Spanneraol (talk)

Are you serious? Since when is a fear of creating "red links" a reason to keep a page that doesn't pass GNG? The clear, common-sense solution is to delete bullpen catchers from the roster pages. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BASEBALL/N states that if the person ever appeared in a Major League Baseball at least once, then the player is notable. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're making mistakes all over these AfDs. You should refrain from voting until you have a better understanding of things. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor Alan Butts never appeared in an MLB game. The above Keep vote is based on an erroneous justification. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbny-wiki-editor: I don't get what you mean by "Alan Butts never appeared in an MLB game". It said that he appeared in games before. But I am going to strike out my comment using WP:COMMONSENSE that the guideline does not include bullpen catchers. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 19:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we now have three people saying keep, none of which are going by any guidelines, and some of which are completely backwards in reading them. I trust the closing admin will actually look at the weight of the comments rather than numbers. Wizardman 02:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument Wizardman is whether these guys count as coaches... if they do then the policy says they count and I feel they are coaches despite what Bbny says.Spanneraol (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the argument, and you haven't been able to offer anything to refute the seven-coach rule discussed in the link above. You also haven't explained why bullpen catchers are unique among alleged coaches in not having the word "coach" in their title. MLB teams have any or all of bench coach, hitting coach, assistant hitting coach, pitching coach, assistant pitching coach, first base coach, third base coach, bullpen coach ... and bullpen catcher. Notice how one is different from the others? That should be a clue for you. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone, you know, considered contacting MLB or the specific teams to see whether they consider the bullpen catchers to be coaches?? Alex (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Contacting MLB would constitute original research, which is prohibited here at Wikipedia. We also don't need to contact MLB, since I posted a link to an ESPN.com story above that makes it clear that bullpen catchers aren't considered coaches. If they WERE considered coaches, they'd count against MLB's seven-coach limit, like all other coaches. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link you posted goes to a "not found" page. Spanneraol (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on it five times. The first two returned a "Not found" error but then the article came up the next three. It looks like ESPN has some odd server issues, but the article is there. Please read it. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven forbid we actually contact the source that would be most able to answer the question of whether or not bullpen catchers are coaches or not. I think we need to WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this case. Alex (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need to ignore rules? In other pending AfDs, you claim to have proven that bullpen catchers are, by definition, coaches. Make up your mind. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because clearly that proof is not being accepted by certain members of this community. Bullpen catchers are by definition coaches, and article upon article and source upon source proves it, however that is not enough for said members, so perhaps going to "the source" to serve as arbiter in the dispute may be the best course of action. Alex (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, now "bullpen catchers are by definition coaches"? That's funny. Right above, you suggested contacting MLB for clarification. You're just back to your usual trolling. (By the way, where are all these sources you mentioned? So far, people have posted about five bad examples, while doing nothing to refute the information in the ESPN.com article I posted above.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ESPN article, which i was finally able to read, says nothing about bullpen catchers and simply talks about the number of coaches allowed in the dugout... obviously they arent in the dugout they are in the bullpen. [7] this source says they are "members of the coaching staff" and actually has a lot of info on these guys that could go towards GNG. I'm getting tired of going round and round on this in any event, as our definitions of what constitutes a coach seem to differ.. My main argument remains that the teams list them as coaches on the website. If they werent coaches they'd be listed under "staff" on the same page instead of under "coaches." And we should go by what the sources say. Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More dishonesty It's really dishonest to rely on the "in the dugout" phrasing, which I already discussed above. As you know, bullpen coaches don't sit in the dugout, but they count against the seven-coach rule. You guys want us to believe that bullpen catchers are coaches, but they don't count against the seven-coach limit. It's both dumb and dishonest. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please... just because we interpret things differently doesn't mean i'm being dishonest. I know the Dodgers have at least two additional coaches (Steve Yeager and Manny Mota) that they list as coaches even though they dont count as part of that seven coach limit and dont hang out in the dugout... Yeager was in the bullpen also during the playoffs. Plus at the end of the season, they had the AAA manager and coaches with the team as well... I really think we've gone around this as much as is useful.. but i do find it offensive that you always assume dishonesty when we simply have a difference of opinion. Spanneraol (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're being dishonest, and you know it. Earlier today, you tried to make a big distinction about "the number of coaches allowed in the dugout," when you know damn well that bullpen coaches _don't_ sit in the dugout and _do_ count against the seven-coach limit. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even worth continuing this conversation if your just gonna resort to name calling. A difference of opinion is not being dishonest. Spanneraol (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you, I haven't called anyone any names. I merely pointed out that you are being dishonest, which is the truth. Your entire "coaches allowed in the dugout" argument is based on dishonesty, since you know damn well that bullpen coaches _don't_ sit in the dugout but _do_ count against MLB's seven-coach limit. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you dont know the meaning of the word, cause it implies i am intentionally lying or presenting false facts which i am not. Calling someone dishonest is calling someone names... you can argue semantics all you want, but to challenge my integrity is insulting and below the belt. You brought up the coaches in the dugout argument, I presented evidence of teams having additional coaches beyond the so-called seven but you just ignored that. I don't really want to debate this anymore, but I want to reiterate that i was NOT being dishonest about anything. Spanneraol (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate troll is he who constantly accuses others of trolling. It's the "whoever smelt it, dealt it" of Internet culture. It's a way to throw people off your scent. Your arguments are very circular, bbny. I don't need clarification as to whether bullpen catchers are coaches, nor does spanneraol, nor does anyone with a basic knowledge of baseball. However, perhaps contacting MLB or MLB teams to get an 'official' answer will help placate certain obstinate parties. Alex (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, calling you a troll is the most accurate thing posted on Wiki last week. Also, "anyone with a basic knowledge of baseball" knows that bullpen catchers are bullpen catchers, NOT coaches. If they were coaches, they would 1) count against MLB's seven-coach limit and 2) have the word "coach" in their title. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We decided the issue of bullpen catchers long ago. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Williams for example. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Contrary to the above, nothing has been "decided" regarding bullpen catchers. The above AfD was a 6-4 keep! back in 2007, with multiple keep! voters using their own made-up interpretation of BASE/N. I have provided all sorts of proof that bullpen catchers aren't considered coaches by MLB, which certain people here are ignoring. If bullpen catchers were coaches, they would 1) count against MLB's seven-coach limit (which they currently do not), 2) have "coach" in their title, like EVERY OTHER COACH IN MLB, and 3) generate sufficient media citations such that BASE/N would be irrelevant, because the subjects would pass GNG. Not a single Wiki page for a current MLB pitching coach, hitting coach, bench coach, first base coach, third base coach, or bullpen coach is relying on BASE/N to justify the Wiki page's existence. If bullpen catchers were really coaches, they, too, would generate huge amounts of media coverage, which all of these guys lack. (There are five pending AfDs for bullpen catchers, and not a one of them passes GNG based on media citations, which should tell us something about their notability.) It's time to use some common sense here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Braves' webpage lists him as a coach. And they do list other non-coach personel separately. [8] So I don't see it for us to decide that he is not a coach. Rlendog (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The question is whether or not bullpen catchers are coaches, because WP:NBASEBALL says that all coaches are notable. I have found reliable sources saying that bullpen catchers are not coaches ("He is listed with the coaches in the team's media guide, but he is not a coach.") and others that say they are ("They are technically members of the coaching staff", "began his coaching career as bullpen catcher") so as far as I am concerned there is no "right answer" and it comes down to community consensus, which seems to favor keeping the article. Cerebellum (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Burgess

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

Bullpen catchers aren't inherently notable, and this one doesn't seem to have the sources to pass GNG (the sources provided are only trivial mentions). Wizardman 21:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bullpen catchers aren't coaches any more than a batting practice pitcher is a coach. Also doesn't pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Team lists him as a coach, so he's a coach. No reason to intentionally create red links on all these team roster pages by deleting bullpen catchers.Spanneraol (talk)

Are you serious? Since when is a fear of creating "red links" a reason to keep a page that doesn't pass GNG? The clear, common-sense solution is to delete bullpen catchers from the roster pages. (And the team doesn't "list him as a coach"; it lists him WITH the coaches, for reasons I've explained before.) - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteFails WP:BASEBALL/N. The article also fails WP:GNG per Wizardman. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 20:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Keep WP:BASEBALL/N states that if the person ever appeared in a Major League Baseball at least once, then the player is notable.[reply]

You're making mistakes all over these AfDs. You should refrain from voting until you have a better understanding of things. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor This guy never appeared in an MLB game. The above Keep vote is based on an erroneous justification. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears in list of team coaches, therefore one can infer that he is considered a coach. Alex (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we now have three people saying keep, none of which are going by any guidelines, and some of which are completely backwards in reading them. I trust the closing admin will actually look at the weight of the comments rather than numbers. Wizardman 02:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the closing administrator will note that Wizardman is erroneous in his above statement, as per WP:BASE/N: Individuals are notable if they "have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the above-mentioned leagues [ie, Major League Baseball]." As the bullpen catchers are listed in conjunction with coaches on the team websites and assume coaching duties, then it is quite clear they fit the parameters of 'coach' and they therefore fit the guideline WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your trollish behavior. You've obviously been following the discussion in the Alan Butts AfD, so it's dishonest of you to continue claiming that bullpen catchers are coaches. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh... but they are coaches. As we have proven time and time again, but which you continue to ignore. Alex (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't proven anything. If you have, why did you suggest, in the Alan Butts AfD, that someone contact MLB to get a clarification? A couple people are just making things up out of thin air. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source on Burgess. [9]. Spanneraol (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We decided the issue of bullpen catchers long ago. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Williams for example. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Contrary to the above, nothing has been "decided" regarding bullpen catchers. The above AfD was a 6-4 keep! back in 2007, with multiple keep! voters using their own made-up interpretation of BASE/N. I have provided all sorts of proof that bullpen catchers aren't considered coaches by MLB, which certain people here are ignoring. If bullpen catchers were coaches, they would 1) count against MLB's seven-coach limit (which they currently do not), 2) have "coach" in their title, like EVERY OTHER COACH IN MLB, and 3) generate sufficient media citations such that BASE/N would be irrelevant, because the subjects would pass GNG. Not a single Wiki page for a current MLB pitching coach, hitting coach, bench coach, first base coach, third base coach, or bullpen coach is relying on BASE/N to justify the Wiki page's existence — every single one of them passes GNG based on media coverage. If bullpen catchers were really coaches, they, too, would generate huge amounts of media coverage, which all of these guys lack. (There are five pending AfDs for bullpen catchers, and not a one of them passes GNG based on media citations, which should tell us something about their notability.) It's time to use some common sense here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Rockies list him as a coach, not other staff. [10] I would not dispute the team's own classification. Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heberto Andrade. Cerebellum (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Camacaro

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

Bullpen catchers aren't inherently notable, and this one doesn't seem to have the sources to pass GNG. Wizardman 21:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bullpen catchers aren't coaches, regardless of what some others here claim. Also doesn't pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIs a coach. From MLB.com profile: "Coaching Career Begins his fifth season on the Indians coaching staff...Duties include catching starting and relief pitchers and throwing batting practice along with assisting Indians positional coaches with functions relative to their positions." [11] Alex (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assisting coaches does not make someone a coach. It makes them a member of the support staff, as I've said multiple times in these AfDs. If a bullpen CATCHER was a COACH, he'd have "coach" in his title. This isn't hard. I'm not sure why certain people here insist on making it hard. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Team lists him as a coach, so he's a coach. Per Alex, "fifth season on Indians coaching staff"... No reason to intentionally create red links on all these team roster pages by deleting bullpen catchers.Spanneraol (talk)

Are you serious? Since when is a fear of creating "red links" a reason to keep a page that doesn't pass GNG? The clear, common-sense solution is to delete bullpen catchers from the roster pages. As I've explained a dozen times, MLB teams are only allowed seven uniformed coaches, and bullpen catchers specifically don't count as coaches. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbny-wiki-editor: He was a coach as explained in here. WP:BASEBALL/N states that if a coach served in MLB, which he did, then he is deemed notable. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 19:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BASEBALL/N states that if the person ever appeared in a Major League Baseball at least once, then the player is notable. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're making mistakes all over these AfDs. You should refrain from voting until you have a better understanding of things. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor This guy never appeared in an MLB game. The above Keep vote is based on an erroneous justification. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASEBALL/N states that any one that appeared in a MLB game is deemed notable. But I'm going to use WP:COMMONSENSE and pretend that the guideline states that any batter, fielder or pitcher that appeared in a MLB game is deemed notable. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 19:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we now have three people saying keep, none of which are going by any guidelines, and some of which are completely backwards in reading them. I trust the closing admin will actually look at the weight of the comments rather than numbers. Wizardman 02:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We decided the issue of bullpen catchers long ago. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Williams for example. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Contrary to the above, nothing has been "decided" regarding bullpen catchers. The above AfD was a 6-4 keep! back in 2007, with multiple keep! voters using their own made-up interpretation of BASE/N. I have provided all sorts of proof that bullpen catchers aren't considered coaches by MLB, which certain people here are ignoring. If bullpen catchers were coaches, they would 1) count against MLB's seven-coach limit (which they currently do not), 2) have "coach" in their title, like EVERY OTHER COACH IN MLB, and 3) generate sufficient media citations such that BASE/N would be irrelevant, because the subjects would pass GNG. Not a single Wiki page for a current MLB pitching coach, hitting coach, bench coach, first base coach, third base coach, or bullpen coach is relying on BASE/N to justify the Wiki page's existence — every single one of them passes GNG based on media coverage. If bullpen catchers were really coaches, they, too, would generate huge amounts of media coverage, which all of these guys lack. (There are five pending AfDs for bullpen catchers, and not a one of them passes GNG based on media citations, which should tell us something about their notability.) It's time to use some common sense here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Indians regard him as a coach, not other staff. [12] Ironically they have a "psychology coach" listed with other staff and I don't think anyone will argue that this title means that he is a member of the coaching staff. So I would go with the team's own classification. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The question is whether or not bullpen catchers are coaches, because WP:NBASEBALL says that all coaches are notable. I have found reliable sources saying that bullpen catchers are not coaches ("He is listed with the coaches in the team's media guide, but he is not a coach.") and others that say they are ("They are technically members of the coaching staff", "began his coaching career as bullpen catcher") so as far as I am concerned there is no "right answer" and it comes down to community consensus, which here seems to favor keeping the article. (And for what it's worth, Coach (baseball)#Other coaches describes bullpen catchers as coaches.) Cerebellum (talk) 06:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heberto Andrade

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

Bullpen catchers aren't inherently notable, and this one doesn't seem to have the sources to pass GNG. Wizardman 21:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listed on team coaching staff page as a coach, that's good enough for me. Alex (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite what others claim, bullpen catchers aren't coaches any more than a batting practice pitcher is a coach, and this guy's bio at MLB.com makes it clear he isn't an actual coach. Also doesn't pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Team lists him as a coach, so he's a coach. No reason to intentionally create red links on all these team roster pages by deleting bullpen catchers.Spanneraol (talk)

The team lists him WITH the coaches, not AS a coach, for reasons I've explained over and over again. Regardless, since when is a fear of creating "red links" a reason to keep a page that doesn't pass GNG? The clear, common-sense solution is to delete bullpen catchers from the roster pages. As I've explained a dozen times, MLB teams are only allowed seven uniformed coaches, and bullpen catchers specifically don't count as coaches. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the closing admin will actually look at the weight of the comments rather than numbers, since right now none of the keep voters are going by guidelines at all. Wizardman 02:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IGNOREALLRULES Alex (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More trollish behavior from Alex. You just posted in another AfD that bullpen catchers are coaches. If you believe that to be the case, why would we need to IGNOREALLRULES? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't win argument? Accuse others of trolling. Alex (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best-known troll in the baseball AfDs, by far. Also, I did win the argument. See the ESPN.com story in the Alan Butts AfD, which details MLB's seven-coach limit/rule. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good profile of Andrade. [13] Spanneraol (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the linked story: "One might not easily recognize the guy wearing No. 86 for the Pirates. He has no baseball card, and he is not even mentioned in the team's 368-page media guide." You want us to believe MLB and the team considers this guy a coach, but they don't even mention him in a 368-page media guide? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A bullpen catcher constantly provides valuable feedback to pitchers. Therefore logic dictates that they must have some sort of coaching skills. If not, teams would be using young minor league catchers for this duty. With the case of Andrade, he did work as a catching coach in international play. And to contradict the paragraph of the linked story, I have several Pirates' programs from Spring Training to the Regular Season between 2007 - 2014 and he is mentioned in all of them and is listed among the coaching staff. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, "logic dictates" that bullpen catchers are bullpen catchers, NOT coaches. If they were coaches, they would 1) count against MLB's seven-coach limit and 2) have the word "coach" in their title. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they weren't coaches, the teams would not list them as coaches on their roster. Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We decided the issue of bullpen catchers long ago. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Williams for example. Kinston eagle (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Contrary to the above, nothing has been "decided" regarding bullpen catchers. The above AfD was a 6-4 keep! back in 2007, with multiple keep! voters using their own made-up interpretation of BASE/N. I have provided all sorts of proof that bullpen catchers aren't considered coaches by MLB, which certain people here are ignoring. If bullpen catchers were coaches, they would 1) count against MLB's seven-coach limit (which they currently do not), 2) have "coach" in their title, like EVERY OTHER COACH IN MLB, and 3) generate sufficient media citations such that BASE/N would be irrelevant, because the subjects would pass GNG. Not a single Wiki page for a current MLB pitching coach, hitting coach, bench coach, first base coach, third base coach, or bullpen coach is relying on BASE/N to justify the Wiki page's existence — every single one of them passes GNG based on media coverage. If bullpen catchers were really coaches, they, too, would generate huge amounts of media coverage, which all of these guys lack. (There are five pending AfDs for bullpen catchers, and not a one of them passes GNG based on media citations, which should tell us something about their notability.) It's time to use some common sense here. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're opinion is certainly noted... you dont need to comment on EVERY vote you disagree with. Spanneraol (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Pirates list him - though not the batting practice pitcher - as a coach. If they regarded him as non-coach other staff they would list him there. [14] So I would follow the team's own classification. Rlendog (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cerebellum (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ciklopea

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

insignificant prizes; trivial coverage DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:59, 11 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) 18:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability --Lfrankblam 17:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted by User:DGG. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bochner

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

I don't think this article meets any standards of notability that would justify its inclusion on wikipedia - or at least it's not apparent from the article GLG GLG (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira

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

This article fails to demonstrate in either its text or its references that Lira is notable. The references are below the threshold that we require; They need to be about him, and independent of him and significant coverage and in WP:RS. None of them pass this set of criteria. Instead we have references that show he exists, but that is, pretty much, all Fiddle Faddle 19:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Several days ago the article was a bunch of fluff text supported by OR and substandard primary sources (see analysis of those sources here). After cleaning it up and removing the substandard sources I scoured the web looking for reliable secondary sources and finding a few I put them into the article. However, as the nominator has indicated, and has been discussed on the talk page [15], even the existing secondary sources do not provide substantial coverage of the subject and therefore the subject does not appear to meet the requirements for a stand alone article per WP:AUTHOR. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Lira entry is markedly improved and is now neutral. The imposition of neutrality revealed that this entry has no underlying substance, the lack of substance being analogous to lack of notability. These types of vanity-entries exist because the existence of a Wikipedia page can provide a legitimizing credential in and of itself. In this way, this entry represents a fundamental misuse of Wikipedia. Why has the revision of this entry been so contentious? If the entry could stand on its own merits there would have been more flexibility in allowing it to be adjusted to neutrality. The entry is not meritorious, the subject lacks notability and therefore I concur that the entry needs to be deleted. Renaissancego (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)RenaissancegoRenaissancego (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article using WP:STiki. Renaissancego (talk · contribs), I reverted your changes to the article as inappropriate; I don't see that you made the article better. You made it worse, and seemingly to further your "it should be deleted" rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very outrageous assumption on your part, I don't have any motivation to an agenda. The edits were made because the article can be reduced to ISBN only that is how I see it. If consensus does not agree that is fine. Extensive reasons listed in [User talk:Gonzalo Lira] At first, I was not going to edit the article down as I would do on other entries of a similar ilk for fear there would be nothing remaining. I have added back ISBN list which took some time to compile, then I removed it because of redundancy. IMHO, The ISBN only is the way to go if the article remains. I appreciate your effort "to improve" the article which is markedly improved. Renaissancego

It's common for editors to gut articles to advance their deletion rationale; so that's why I don't find it outrageous that you might have been doing the same. I apologize for my edit accusation/implication above if that was not the case with you. Flyer22 (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thank you for returning it to its somewhat better poor state. A valid outcome of this discussion would be the provision of assertion of and verification of notability. But at least we are still discussing the baseline I saw when I nominated it for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 08:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- While Renaissancego's edit appears to have been in good faith, it was inappropriate as it removed text supported by several reliable secondary sources. While I agree that Lira's published books are the most notable part of his career, changing to an IBSN list weakens rather supports Lira's notability. For the sake of fairness I would like to add that Lira is listed at IMDB as having been the writer, director and producer of a movie called Secuestro. [16] However I don't think this changes much as the film has not received any press, appears to be non-notable, IMDB is user generated content and therefore a low quality source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS Here is a Spanish web site that lists Lira as director of the film mentioned above.[17]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" --Lfrankblam 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
Delete Regardless of the version of the article, the subject seems to fail notabilty requirements. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as copyvio. Whether there is a chance of notability or not, there would have to be a total rewrite done, and revdel or oversight of the copyright material. Easier to delete and wait for fresh action. Peridon (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FinePrint

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

This article about a commercial organization has been a STUB for about a year. It has several problems that would normally lead to Speedy Deletion under the reasons listed below, yet having read the one and only reliable source by the guardian it seems the company may be notable if only within the geography of India and possibly the UK. I think this article may be salvageable by a WP editor who is familiar with India. Also, an article of the same name was was deleted by PROD in Feb-2012 (so this cannot be PROD'd again per WP:PRODNOM) but I cannot see if that page was the same topic as this is (there are several DAB's on this name). An admin may want to look it up and see who/what was involved in that process.

So, I am putting this up for AfD to see if it can/should be salvaged. If it can there is also the potential issue that the article's creator may have a conflict of interest and will need guidance to prevent issues there.

REASONS (again, these would normally be CSD reasons but looking at the big picture CSD seems not the right process for this particular article):

No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)
- More correctly insufficient indication of importance. At least one additional reliable source is needed to meet WP:Notability requirements.
Unambiguous advertising or promotion
- This article, as written, seems to be promoting the company. This may be inadvertent unless the involved editors have a conflict of interest.
Unambiguous copyright infringement
- The text is a verbatim copy from the company's website linked in the article. This may be COI or it may be just an inexperienced user (WP:AGF).

104.32.193.6 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC) - AFD completed for IP by NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12, copyvio of http://fineprint.com.np/aboutus and so nominated on the article itself. Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W. Neil “Doc” Gallagher

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wrote some books. Did anyone review them? Did they have any impact? One source seems to confirm that he's also been a radio broadcaster (and has maybe seen the invoices for the time he bought) but it seems "less than complimentary" on his regulatory probity. It's not enough to make a critical biography, it's certainly not there to support a positive aspect in one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:02, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced biography and no indication of notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability --Lfrankblam 17:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Richburg

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Contested PROD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:AUTHOR. The books are self-published and I can't find any independent coverage whatsoever. Kolbasz (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 11 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Not even in worldcat. We have on very rare occasions kept self-published fiction when it becomes a really important best seller, but 11th on wattpad's historical fiction list is not even near that. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self published. No notable coverage. Not in worldcat. Of course fails WP:AUTHOR. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cerebellum (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horacio Cambeiro

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

Not notable. Another promotional piece for this minor local reporter based on poor sourcing, originally posted at Hori Cambeiro to avoid scrutiny. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Has a decent number of references but they are a mix of blogs, publications he has worked for, routine announcement, local interest pieces and a passing mention. Nothing significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I don't carry any brief for people who use sockpuppets, facebook, twitter etc to publicise themselves. However, Cambeiro's list of interviews in newspapers from Argentina in spanish seems to be genuine, I checked several of them and all were short magazine articles about him, supporting the claim that he is a notable journalist in the Spanish-speaking world.--JohnLeeAnderson (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote is a modified copy from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Nan disingenuously posted here. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 11 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability --Lfrankblam 17:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)

Delete Link one is dead. Link 2 is to the verso of a title page with him named as one of the "collaborators", but he is not listed on the cover or title page (meaning he had a small roll, e.g. did research, provided photos). Link 3 & 4 are about him as a pilot, both short "human interest" pieces. Link 5 is a short notice of a radio show. 6 & 7 get a 403. 8 is another short piece about the radio show. Interesting fellow, but none of the articles establish notability. LaMona (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Penn

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

effectively unsourced, non-neutral BLP The Banner talk 09:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why this article would be considered for deletion. I removed the links to disambiguation pages (sincerely sorry about that). The bulk of new contributions to the content came directly from in-person interviews with the actor Mr. Edward Penn in Illinois between 2013 to 2014. Please advise if that particular insight needs to be included in the wiki page. Thank you. -DGP

I suggest you start with reading Guidelines for reliable sources. Usually Wikipedia requires third party, reliable, prior published sources. First hand sources (i.e. the actor himself) are rarely accepted as sources to prove notability. Social media are also seldom accepted as source for establishing notability. And last: articles about living persons MUST be sourced, external links are not sources. The Banner talk 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself says his principal notability is appearance in one episode of Seinfeld. That's not enough. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 20 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) 18:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete or userfy If someone is willing to take this in hand (I'm thinking of User:DGPatt) work on this further, it may pass muster. Penn does appear in a number of TV shows over the years, so there may be material about him in the TV press. On the other hand, he could turn out to be just another actor with a number of small roles. From the article, it isn't possible to tell which it is. I suspect, however, that it will take some concerted effort to find reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fletcher (Comedian & Entrepreneur)

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

Individual appears to be non-notable per wiki guidelines. Existing sources are not reliable as per WP:RS. Onel5969 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability requirements. reddogsix (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page covers an individual who has done notable work within the Media industry and is continuing to. Wikipedia is about sharing information between people, while this person may not be known by some people it is no reason to delete a page, notability is something which each individual will see differently, there are many people who find this individual to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartineHiepo (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You have failed to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. You may see notability as different than an other, but Wikipedia is very specific in how it defines it and you have failed to demonstrate it for the individual. reddogsix (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources indicating how the subject meets notability guidelines. The entire article is sourced to websites associated with the subject, YouTube videos, etc. I would also suggest deleting the article on the author's self-published book/"as of yet unproduced" television show, BHS Bellwood. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant secondary coverage per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Heavy citation/linkage to of official website or commercial sites appears promotional. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. there is not reliable coverage to establish notability. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More information to be added to the article along with further evidence and reliable sources. Article incomplete

Keep There is a lot more you can include in this article. Keep With sourced information that does exist, it is possible to write about the history and uses of this product. H

Delete - all of the online sources, and all but a single paper source, are self-published. This articles fails all of our guidelines. Wikipedia is not "about sharing information between people..."; it is an encyclopedia. That "this person may not be known by some people" is most certainly a good reason to delete an article. Wikimedia is a private charity, which while open to the public, doesn't have to take in everybody. One would not suppose one could rush into a Girl Guides campground, an Anglican church chancel, or an YHA youth hostel bunk room without permission, all the while telling insulting jokes. How can somebody assume they could do the equivalent to Wikipedia? Furthermore, we are based on objectivity, not subjectivity. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Wikipedia is funded by donations, it is simply not right to delete an article which has been created by someone who put alot of time into it's creation AND who donates to the upkeep of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lola1263818 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete- Rupert Pupkin has found Wikipedia. As stated by others, this clearly fails notability and reliable sources. Of the sources there are, some are downright suspicious, if not absurd. Die Welt and something called the "National Press, Canada" apparently have been reporting the effect Mr Fletcher's work has had on their respective populations. Germans are not happy with Mr Fletcher's magnum opus, his unmade sitcom script that at most was self-published and which I'm certain has not troubled production schedules within the German publishing industry. Nor is the cause behind any recent perturbations amongst the citizenry. And I can find no organisation or facility called the "Bellwood Institute of Health" so who's got their knickers in a twist there we'll never know for as long as the "National Press, Canada" remains impenetrable and unknowable. But those who are inspired by Mr Fletcher's success and inventiveness will surely find his altruistic entrepreneurial "publishing and record" companies with their "international reach" a great help in imagining themselves on US radio whilst talking to themselves on YouTube. Mr Fletcher's stay on Wikipedia will not last but maybe he "figured it this way: better to be king for a night...."[18]. Meanwhile an admin better lock the Jerry Lewis article... Plutonium27 (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and sources are not Reliable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though sourcing should be worked on (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Specht

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, has done nothing notable, all small roles most of them nameless such as "Receptionist", "Nurse", "Burger Chick". LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though I agree with nominator that she has done small roles such as "Receptionist", "Nurse", "Burger Chick", her selection in the robots-dominated Transformers: Age of Extinction, made her notable.

How she could be non-notable when she becomes 96th place in the world's largest and best-selling men's magazine Men's Health selection, as one of the 100, The Hottest Women of 2014.

Those who have come 97th, 98th, 99th and 100th have got already pages on Wikipedia.

The selections in Transformers: Age of Extinction and Men's Health proves her notability.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her role in Transformers did NOT make her notable, she doesn't have a notable role, she's Joshua's assistant, doesn't even have a name. I've seen it multiple time and STILL couldn't tell you which one she is. Thus failing WP:ENTERTAINER. And bringing up other pages is just WP:WAX, we are talking about Specht not them. The Men's Magazine is a mere mention, doesn't surpass WP:GNG with significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 10:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the Transformers once; that is a robot-dominated movie; they are the heroes and villains. Melanie Specht's selection to the multi-million dollar($210million) movie is an implied Notability to the subject

Your Statement: "And bringing up other pages is just WP:WAX, we are talking about Specht not them."

According to WP:WAX: "..........While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."

Your Statement: "The Men's Magazine is a mere mention, doesn't surpass WP:GNG with significant coverage."

My Comment: That is your POV; The Men's Magazine's consideration to compare Melani Specht with other celebrities is an implied Notability to the subject.

Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "a robot-dominated movie", we aren't talking about the movie, we are talking about her and her insignificant role in. Per WP:ENTERTAINER, an actor should have

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. She doesn't
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. She doesn't.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. She hasn't.

Thus fails notability. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. She doesn't or she hasn't any of those to meet the WP:ENTERTAINER as you suggest; can you explain then why;

Michael Bay selected her in the multi-million dollar project?

Why Men's Health (magazine), the world's largest men's magazine brand, with 40 editions in 47 countries and the the best-selling men's magazine on U.S. newsstands, compared her with other Notable celebrities?

If you couldn't answer properly, then she may meet at least one of those you have highlighted, but we are not aware of it.Chandana Jayasinghe(Sri Lanka) (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chandana Jayasinghe passes WP:GNG marginally there is a coverage [19] [20] [21] [22].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. It's bad enough having to deal with this kind of thing on April Fools' Day, so let's not. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Practical joke

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

It's a practical joke Amanda Smalls 15:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep bad faith nomination. 16:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Keep I meant this to be a joke. You know, doing a practical joke by deleting the Practical Joke article.Amanda Smalls 17:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Castillo

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally as the article had been previously PROD'ed six years ago. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Convert to disambiguation page. Philg88 ^♦talk 11:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali American

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

The original article is this. 115ash^→(☏) 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although this piece is unsourced in its current state, this is a legitimate American ethnicity and the subject of some academic study, such as Sanghamitra Niyogi, "Bengali-American Fiction in Immigrant Identity Work," in the journal Cultural Sociology. Carrite (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Convert to Disambiguation page - I see enough google hits for the term "Bengali American" to say that the topic is worth a wikipage. I am also sympathetic to the fact that the Bengalis are divided across a national boundaries and, so, there are reasons for them to have a page devoted to the Bengali ethnicity independent of nationalities. Can we tag the page asking people to expand the article, and revisit the issue in a year's time? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind after seeing the reference to the previous AfD. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangladeshi American - possible content fork. --Zayeem ^(talk) 07:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as per nom an editor from Bangladesh in Previous AFD convert to Disambiguation page. The term Bengali is used by mainly Bengali Indian Americans of whom many are covered in Indian American whereas the term Bangladeshi American is used by those from Bangladesh. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it will be better if its disambiguation, a few names and 3-4 lines of description fulfills the criteria. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cerebellum (talk) 05:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Fraser (diplomat)

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

fails WP:BIO. this is his one and only ambassador role. And being ambassador to Kiribati is very low on the diplomatic scale. I could no significant coverage either. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Also nominating for same reasons:

Brett Aldam

LibStar (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. When Kiribati begins to play an important role in international politics we may -or maybe not- consider notable foreign ambassadors designated to that island nation. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - unless better and additional sources can be found, this fails WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here is his official biography on the Department of Foreign Affairs Website [23]. It indicates a variety of professional positions within the department, both in Australia and at overseas embassies. This posting as ambassador is his first and the biography doesn't mention any other public activities. I believe the bio means he passes the BLP criteria for a reliable source, but dosn't pass the notability criteria for a biography. Witty lama 20:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LimitPblank

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

Non-notable product: doesn't seem to exist anywhere except WP. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I PRODed this but the creator removed it. There's no indication of notability at all, and no Google hits other than the WP article itself and a mirror of the creator's user talk page. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Could probably be done under A7 or A11. No secondary sources anywhere to even confirm that this game exists or will exist. Cannolis (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A7 doesn't apply to products, unfortunately. Kolbasz (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero notability and credibility. WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MADEUP, take your pick. Kolbasz (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above comments state the reason quite well. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Aksonova

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

An autobiography. The subject has been in long list of several local competitions but did not make it to short lists; she was an editor of a magazine of unclear significance, and about a half of the links are to this magazine; I assume if there are any further points to prove the notability, she would have added them to the article at creation. Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. None of the cited sources directly establishes the topic of this article as significant: they are either her works, or about her works, and in the latter case don't establish those works as particularly notable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she keeps editing this article after she knows it's a violation of WP:COI, and that we know that she's just not notable. Go ahead, rearrange the deck chairs. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Ymblanter and Bearian. No evidence of significant secondary coverage per WP:GNG or WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as per WP:CSD#G12. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 17:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Bennicke

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

Does not seem to meet our notability threshold, prod removed by major contributor. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close Speedy deleted (G12) by Jimfbleak already. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 15:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of shops and business enterprises in Butwal

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a list of non-notable businesses in a particular town. LS1979 (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rather pointless list. It's not what an encyclopaedia is for, and if it was intended to promote the businesses it fails there too. Peridon (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If so, what about this page? List of doughnut shops. I think the knowledge that wiki assumes is local and global knowledge. Not the knowledge and information dominated by some giants only.(nirmal (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Those are doughnut shops with articles. Wikipedia 'List of...' pages are part of the indexing system to enable readers to find articles on similar topics, which 'Search' won't do. I would doubt that any of the businesses would qualify for articles, and if they do, articles should be written and referenced - and a Category 'Businesses in Butwal' created to link them. Peridon (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, editors approach appears to be problem with english which is making their initial efforts unsuccessful. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a web host for local businesses in a small city. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G3 by RHaworth (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ROBLOX: The Movie

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

This looks to me unlikely to be to be a 20th Century Fox release, but I'm not certain if it counts as a blatant hoax. I am fairly certain that it is non-notable. I have no objection to it being declared a blatant hoax, but am opening it to debate in case it is really what it says. Peridon (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the movie itself it is not a hoax, it is a minor fan-created youtube movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-d6TubBJ8Y, why I listed it as speedy non-notable web content in the first place. The movie being a 20th Century Fox release is blatantly false though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The article didn't make it apparent that it was a YouTube thing (probably because that wouldn't go with 20th CF). Probably best to have it deleted here, though, so we can use G4 if it reappears. ROBLOX fans are similar to Minecrafters in persistence... Peridon (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3 That the article fakes non-existent Budget/Box office figures/Production company ("Samuel Brice Productions"), blatant false connection to 20CF, and that "(trailer) attached theatrically with The Maze Runner" I would say it is intended to be a hoax on a context level. Or grapple to the "blatant and obvious misinformation" part literally, which should be of little debate. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 11:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I thought this sounded familiar somehow. Back in 2012 there were attempts to create articles for Samuel Brice Videos and Samuel Brice, the latter of which was deleted several times to the point where I'm surprised it wasn't salted. I think that this is a pretty fair indication that salting will likely become necessary. Since it's also highly likely that this is the same person that edited under User:Samuellala and User:Samuel9003, I think that a warning about spamming Wikipedia and about hoaxes would also be appropriate. They likely opened this account because they forgot the password for the earliest account, so I don't think that this specific account is a case of sockpuppetry but a warning might not be bad since there was possible socking back in 2012. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, there does appear to be some sockpuppeting going on here with User:ThisPlaceISCOOL13. I also can't help but feel that there are some other things that this kid's name is related to, that probably went to AfD or were otherwise speedied. If I can find them, I'll link them. Offhand I would say that blocking all the accounts involved would probably be a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found some: it's Roblox Toons and List of Roblox Toons episodes, which were created by User:SamuelsWorld7733. Yeah... blocks for everyone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other accounts are stale, but I'm going to block and/or tag them (one is already blocked) so that there's a trail here. Probably no need for an SPI, unless more accounts pop up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of the accounts have been tagged and blocked, except for the main account. The blocking was probably unnecessary for the staler accounts but again, I wanted there to be a trail here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rainey Qualley

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

Okay so I expanded this the best I could-which as you could tell got me zip as it is basically the same except adding a link and her mother. This is a combination too soon and not inherited. I do think she could get her own page someday, but not yet-a redirect to her mom be the best now IMO. Wgolf (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, no claims that she's done anything. Could be deleted under WP:BLPPROD or WP:A7. Pburka (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, technically this is eligible for CSD A7, but she did have top billing in the film Falcon Song. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Seems like she has multiple significant roles, including lead in Falcon Song, looking at IMDB. Anyone want to add info on these? —innotata 19:31, 5 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 12 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, DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stub entry, that cannot support itself therefore the subject is not notable. --Lfrankblam 17:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
Keep She won the Miss Golden Globe award in 2012 ([24], [25]) and meets WP:NACTOR as she has had significant roles in multiple notable films (Mighty Fine and Falcon Song). --Cerebellum (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed in favour of a newer discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Karmabhoomi (2nd nomination). (Non-admin close). St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Karmabhoomi

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

Not notable, highly POV, and not at all an encyclopedic topic. Clearly violates Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. I had previously turned this article into a redirect, but an editor disagreed with that, so bringing to AfD for community decision. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per Tokyogirl79. Redirect is prederred over deletion since it preserves the page history.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Equestria Girls (film series)

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

Contested PROD. There are only two films in the series, and while both notable, on a very weak level; there is no inherit notability of the series, and whatever details of the series as a whole can be explained in the main show article My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. MASEM (t) 04:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simple math; two films aren't a 'series', and articles are just Ctrl+V'ed textwalls of each film's articles. The links between each article work just fine. Nate • (chatter) 05:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this article. The two film article are enough. This one is only redundant. Gial Ackbar (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic#Equestria_Girls_film_series. Right now there are only two films, so there's not really a true need for a separate film series page at this point in time. The main MLP:FIM page already has a fairly good section about this, so I recommend redirecting this there. When more films release (and this is a "when" and not an "if", given the films have done well) we can always undo the redirect and restore and fix the article- which looks like it would mostly center upon condensing the plot details and adding in more sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only one editor argued for keeping the article, and that editor did not support their argument. Cerebellum (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Games

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

As per the rationale on the talk page, the most that we could gather about the company is from internet memes, anecdotes on blogs about the publisher's games being of dubious quality and the like. So far Phoenix's shoestring business model has led to them being all but ignored by the mainstream gaming press like Kotaku or IGN - unless if they take a gander at the games, and if the said articles receive a lot of attention, I'd say we should have this one deleted for now. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the one mentioned from the talk page, I'm copying my response here for posterity:
I don't think this topic meets the general notability guideline. These are the best sources I was able to find: [26][27]—both cover the company but don't have nearly enough to write a full article about the company. There are also passing mentions in: [28][29][30] and some product announcements: [31][32][33]. The quick synopsis of the previous links is that the company is known for shovelware and is briefly lambasted for it in listicles, and the name also shows in some press release-y product announcements for games that do not have enough coverage for even their own sections in a parent article. I wanted to check if anyone had additional sourcing before I take this to AfD. czar ♔ 14:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There were no responses until now. czar ♔ 20:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this link from the previous AfD: [34]. Still don't think it's enough—the srcs are mainly to disparage the dev and give little to no info to base an encyclopedia article. czar ♔ 09:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources from Game Asylum via Know Your Meme. Not sure if RS because it does say it is under Blogs. [35] [36] Also Joystiq source from last AfD. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 03:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And @Czar: the Fung Wan Online one (your 8th link) is about a completely different company, maybe from Chengdu according to Baidu Baike (not RS). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KYM is indeed unreliable (user-submitted), and I'm almost entirely sure that my link 8 is Phoenix. I believe they had a Malaysian branch, and this would be it. czar ♔ 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company, although obscure, has earned some notoriety. BrayLockBoy (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to back up what you say for it to be taken into consideration. Please explain how it meets Wikipedia's standards for having a stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless if major gaming websites take notice of the company or the memes that spawned from their games (see Final Fantasy VII for the Famicom), this would indeed, as one editor put it, be mired in obscurity. Phoenix skimped on marketing their games, hence why most news sites were practically unaware or turned a blind eye on them. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reason I created one of the company's video games, Animal Soccer World, was because I thought it had enough sources to meet the GNG guidelines. Not the company that made this game. And although Animal Soccer World was merged into this article, I still believe this company fails the GNG guidelines. good888 (talk) 16:31, 17 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) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 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 08:56, 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, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 01:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarkeesian Effect

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

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

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

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

Article about film in production; no indication of notability. Trivialist (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Anita Sarkeesian. At this point in time there really is very little about this documentary other than there are plans to make it and the fundraising efforts are receiving some controversy. The big problem here is that at this point in time the controversy is relatively small in comparison to other stuff (Gamergate, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games as a whole) and this specific documentary has not yet received enough coverage to where it'd merit a mention outside of Sarkeesian's article. If this gets fully off the ground and gets made, it's likely that it will gain that necessary coverage but right now it's just simply WP:TOOSOON for an article. It is getting some notice from a few media outlets due to its association with Sarkeesian and Gamergate, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by being associated with either the woman or the controversy. Right now the coverage is so insanely light that there's no true reason for an independent article at this point in time. I'd say redirect and merge to Sarkeesian due to the film's name, as she'd be the person they'd most likely associate with the film and because her article is a lot smaller than the Gamergate article, although that last bit is sort of an aside. I do think that we should leave the article's history intact so we can redirect if/when the coverage becomes available. Right now, it's all focusing on one thing: people trying to shut down the crowdfunding campaign and not really in a fashion that'd truly show a depth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to delete. Upon further thought, I don't entirely think that this is really worth a redirect and merge. I'm trying to clean it up a little and I'm not finding much of anything out there about this. I hadn't found much to begin with, but the more I think about it the more this just doesn't seem like it's worth mentioning anywhere at this point in time. I don't have any issue with anyone wanting to userfy this, but offhand I'm really not seeing enough to where this is really notable enough for even a mention at this point in time. This isn't exactly getting covered in anything other than self-published sources, WP:PRIMARY sources, and places that would likely be considered unusable by much of WP:RS/N. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even an actual film at this time, just a single-purpose account creating an article on a kickstarter-like project. Minor, blog-ish coverage, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being way Too Soon. This "in development" article is premature. Allow undeletion or recreation when filming begins and onlyif it gets coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if the subject actually gains notability once production/release rolls around. No significant coverage outside of a few blog posts. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for this likely vaporware film's lack of notability. Sixthhokage1 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is supposed to be an IMDB page and teaser clips this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC) — Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), an IMDb page does not by itself establish the film's notability. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Filming underway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPY7OqGQONQ&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that IMDb is just a database entry, which cannot show notability. There are a lot of films on IMDb that fail notability guidelines quite solidly and I should know- I'm frequently finding movies on there that'd I'd love to add but they were released to little to no fanfare. As far as filming goes, that doesn't give notability to the film by film footage existing. What that point of WP:NFF means is that filming has begun and there is substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources to warrant there being a page before the film releases. Right now that coverage just doesn't exist to where Wikipedia would consider this film to be notable per the guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The project does earn close to $10.000 a month. That stands out notably from most patreon projects. I think that makes it notable enough even before the documentary is published.PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wise to review WP:N and WP:NFILM, so you will be aware of the notability criteria for this project, and for films specifically. "The Project earns X dollars per month" is not one of them. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've still been looking for coverage for this and I found a Reddit thread that suggests that the film's creators have been asking people to come on here and help rescue the article.(Much, much love to User:wwwwolf for explaining notability policy in the same thread.) I'd like to stress that this article can only be salvaged if you can provide coverage in reliable and independent sources, which do not seem to be available at this point in time. Just coming on here and asking for it to be kept based on the Patreon project doing well or because it has an IMDb page isn't really going to do anything because it doesn't fall under the notability rationales at WP:NFF, as it all boils down to coverage. Having a successful crowdsourcing campaign can help gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No reliable sources to speak for this not-even-existent film, and no other claim to notability per WP:NOTFILM. An obvious attempt to use Wikipedia as free advertising for a non-notable topic by a single-purpose account. An admin should WP:SPEEDY it under WP:G11; it's unambiguous promotion with no hope of being rewritten.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... unless provably a blatant hoax or a BLP violation, films are generally not speediable. Even if negatively, the film's planned production is getting some limited coverage which supports the article's content. And were it to never be made, we could still look to WP:NFF (paragraph 3) to see if its failure was notable... so asserting it has "no hope of being rewritten" is not precisely accurate. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are candidates for WP:G11 if they're "unambiguously promotional", like this is, and they could not be rewritten with reliable sources. Despite the valiant efforts of Tokyogirl and G S Palmer to rewrite it, the three blog sources here aren't nearly enough to base an article on, or event o justify a mention in another article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for films "unambiguous promotion" would be something like saying "this is gonna be the best film ever" or "this film is going to win major awards" or "send us your money so we can make the film". And as Tokyogirl and G S Palmer at least tried, they deserve our thanks and appreciation. Pretty much every article here on Wikipedia "promotes" its topic in some manner by sharing sourced information of which our readers might otherwise be unaware, and various aspects of poorly written articles become a matter of editorial attention to address tone, content, format, and style. The article will doubtless be deleted but does not need the added stigma of a speedy. If the film is ever made and a properly-sourced neutral article is eventually reintroduced, I'll chuckle at the irony of "no hope of being rewritten".... but I do not see it happening anytime soon, specially with the current sourcing. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More press coverage: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/sparrow-gamergate-when-outsiders-become-the-oppressors/5719584 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefocusingblur (talk • contribs) 18:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefocusingblur:. Thanks, but read WP:NFF. The one paragraph describing Sarkeesian's activism and the 30 minute video clip where she complains of the objectification of women in video games, do not speak toward this planned film in any way. ANd the pitch trailer speaking about the proposed film does not impart notability. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NF. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Thing

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

The subject of the article is not notable. ȸ (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third party coverage. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Royal (author). If it gets to be that enough is found for an article on the Thing (I must confess to having had a vision of a disembodied hand clutching a rosary when I saw the title), it can be revived. as it is, the RR article says it already. Peridon (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peridon. An on-line magazine is effectively a website or blog and most are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Royal (author). per Peridon.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The Catholic Thing is a well-known online magazine and, thus, deserves an article in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mendez (host)

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

In spite of the single earlier Time Out interview, this seems to be a WP:BLP1E. He's getting a lot of ephemeral press-coverage now because he was just fired, but no one really cared before this and in a week no one will care again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ImprovingWiki (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a cue card guy fighting with a show writer, and that's all. Hekerui (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an example of WP:BLP1E. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and WP:BLP1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - c'mon..this guy has never accomplished anything of significance. He was an annoying cue card boy who accosted a writer. The only reason anyone knows his name is because of David Letterman. Me and everyone on my block should be in Wikipedia if this guy is. ransk (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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