Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 October	24 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 delete (WP:CSD#A7) by RHaworth (talk · contribs)

Wildways (band)

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

Fails WP:NM; fanpage for unsigned band. Blackguard 23:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search netted nothing - fails notability EBY (talk) 01:57, 24 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 no consensus. Dennis 2¢ 23:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Siegelman

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

Unreferenced BLP. Search located a few minor citations and no reliable secondary sources sufficient to establish notability under either WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Tgeairn (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on what's there, this does not meet the usual criteria. A re-direct to Snapping (book) would seem best. Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems like he's notable outside of "Snapping", as he has also written "Dark Hero of the Information Age" which has been reviewed in the New York Times [1], New Scientist [2] and Publishers Weekly. [3] Meets WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3. Jinkinson talk to me 13:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Flo Conway Thanks to User:Jinkinson for digging out those references to reviews of "Dark Hero...". I retract my earlier vote. I note that both "Snapping" and "Dark Hero..." were written with Flo Conway. Indeed, everything of any note that Siegelman or Conway have done appears to have been done with the other. The Flo Conway article is tagged but hasn't been AfD'd. Two almost identical articles for Siegelman and Conway seems silly, but there is perhaps just about enough for an article on the writing pair. I suggest trying that, and if feeling remains that there is not enough to establish notability, another AfD is always possible. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 1 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just redirected Flo Conway to Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change; that's a possibility for this one too. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 10 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 00:43, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 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. Secret ^account 04:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louwalan clan

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

Even making all possible allowance for WP:CSB, there's no indication of notability here; the principal source for the page, that by Beneah Manyuru Mutsotso, does not once mention the clan (Chief Louwalan is mentioned several times). No hits on Scholar or JSTOR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The article you mention, the primary source of the material from a historical perspective is titled in full;

Dr. Mutostso, B.M, International Journal of Education & Research: The East Pokot Pastoralists in conflict siege: Reflections on cultural interpretations of persistent conflict

The article discusses causes of conflict between two ethnic groups, the Pokot and the Njemps. It identifies this legend of Louwalan being culturally significant to the Pokot in interpreting their causes of conflict.

The story of 'Lowalan' and praise songs to him are also captured in the biography of Domunguria, a Pokot man, written during a period of rapid cultural change. It is significant in being the only book that captures Pokot traditions and culture from the perspective of an ethnic Pokot. It is available online here;

http://www.iwgia.org/publications/search-pubs?publication_id=9

Search text 'Lowalan'

The first book to be written on the Pokot, by Beech, the colonial district officer in 1911 actually has an image of him that might be available for inclusion in Wikicommons. In the list of illustrations, he notes of 'Lowelan' that he was "their most renowned warrior".

It is available online here; https://archive.org/stream/suktheirlanguage00beecrich#page/n13/mode/2up

Search text for 'Lowelan'

The folk-lore of a related but separate ethnic group, the Tugen, captures the story of Lowalan as 'Clan Long'ole'. Of all the accounts, it is the most comprehensive hence my choice of clan as the title and structure of the article. This tale was captured in one of the only accounts of the wider Kalenjin folk-lore, by Cianjui Chesaina. Book reference below.

Chesaina, C. Oral Literature of the Kalenjin, 1991

I believe this makes the topic relevant though your point regarding Lowalan the person as opposed to the clan he led is well taken and perhaps may require editing in that regard. Eren Gatiat (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 29 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, czar ♔ 22:17, 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 01:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is a small stub. It appears to be about a clan, not a tribe, with no indication of its size. Without evidcne of size, I think we need to conclude that it is (or was) NN. We have someone defending its existence. If he is prepared to expand it, I might be willing to keep it, but for the moment I cannot support that. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change --- In defense of the articles existence, I would be prepared to expand it. As JLN noted in his original comment though, the article references Louwalan the individual more than the clan he led, he was notable during his time as recorded in a contemporary account but also in the impact that his legend has had on a number of tribes, two distinctly. I'd therefore propose a change of the articles title simply to Louwalan, the most common rendition of the individuals name. Under this title both the account of the individual and the clan could be discussed. As noted I would be happy to contribute to writing the article.Eren Gatiat (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis 2¢ 23:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the text of the article was removed as a copy vio and the article immediately nominated for deletion. The deleted text shows the clan is notable. I would like to see the article kept and Eren Gatiat given a reasonable chance to bring the article up to scratch (say 6 months) before the matter is re-considered. Op47 (talk) 20:12, 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 keep. I would recommend stripping out the products list and other improper parts, but it does seem to have enough sources available and the consensus is to put them in. Dennis 2¢ 23:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KB INDELA

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

Notability is not established. Significance not established. Reads more like a website then a Wikipedia Article. Only contributor seems to have a WP:COI with the article. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a private company, with no indication of notability. I found nothing useful. Even the single article listed only mentions INDELA briefly. --Larry (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the Russian language page I found what looks like valid RS 1 2 and establish notability. Some Russian speaking editors should get involved to improve the article and adress the issues raised by nom.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 7 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 02:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very good references in the ruWP. (I think they are a little erratic about notability , so the presence of an articlethere does not necessarily imply there should be one here also. But in this particular case, the information there is valuable in showing notability according to our standards.) I wish people translating articles would at least copy over the references, to make it apparent that they exist--they may have to be replaced or reorganized or translated, but having them in the enWP article in any form is a start. My Russian is rudimentary, but РУССКАЯ ПЛАНЕТА seems a reliable source, as does the Russian Unnmanned Vehicle Systems Association and http://news.tut.by. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 21 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 23:03, 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 no consensus. Unfortunately, little participation, but if the past is any indication, it would have been kept. At this time, however, I don't see a clear consensus. Dennis 2¢ 23:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Americablog

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

In the previous AfD, only one actual argument for inclusion was made: "Two of the references are non-trivial and establish barely sufficient notability for an article". The rest of the arguments where using subjective standards of notability that have no bearing on article inclusion. The criteria is WP:WEBCRIT. It says that the standard is: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

The most substantial coverage appears to be: [4] which is only a paragraph long which describes it in a way as to show that it is not well known "You may not be too familiar with this outspoken political blog ...". I don't see the non-trivial coverage in published works. Some of the commentators in the last discussion may have confused the notability of John Aravosis with that of the blog, but notability is not inherited. Second Quantization (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seeing a good deal of coverage at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, specifically https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Americablog%22&gws_rd=ssl and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Americablog%22 and more specifically discussion in books Why God Doesn't Hate You by Tia Michelle Pesando, Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press by Eric Boehlert, Routledge International Encyclopedia of Queer Culture by David A. Gerstner, in total about one-thousand (1,000) results in Google Books. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, we both know your just showing WP:GOOGLEHITS and that's no argument. I just looked at the Routledge coverage and it's minimal. Do you actually think our criteria is for coverage that minimal. The only information it gives is that John Aravosis blogs for them. That's it. That's not significant coverage. Even "Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press" says next to nothing about the blog, and it's an entire book dedicated to blogs! Pick your best source, because if those two are the best, then that's nothing close to the requirements. Second Quantization (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm not seeing here is any great, credible or well-sourced reason why the blog needs a separate article from the one on the primary writer of the blog. In fact, this article as written actually contains very little content that isn't simply a repetition of stuff that's already in John Aravosis — and that little bit could easily be merged into Aravosis' article too. And I'm saying all this as somebody who does read Americablog fairly regularly — it's a topic that we rightly should maintain some content about, but by contemporary wikistandards the ideal presentation of that content is not to have one article about Aravosis himself and a separate article about the blog as a distinct topic which is mostly just repeating content from Aravosis' BLP. (For a comparable example, we have an article about Andy Towle, but Towleroad is not a separate standalone article — it's just a redirect to Towle's BLP.) Redirect to John Aravosis. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as redundant, a content fork or double articles for one topic. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:51, 29 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a search on HighBeam and it returned 154 hits. Most are not in-depth but many cite the blog as a source, thereby meeting WP:Notability (media)#Guidelines: #4 and #5. I am One of Many (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is not a newspaper, magazine or journals, so that criteria is irrelevant. The correct criteria is WP:INTERNET which explicitly includes online blogs in its remit. If you think 154 cites (or more correctly in your case, search results) counts for notability, then hundreds of thousands of ordinary academic articles are notable, Second Quantization (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:INTERNET applies, but they don't describe themselves as a blog: "AMERICAblog is a journal of news and opinion about US politics, both domestic and foreign, from a progressive point of view". Moreover, most of the reliable source hits on "AMERICAblog" cite them as a liberal news source or journal. Their status is a bit ambiguous, but whether best covered under WP:INTERNET or WP:Notability (media)#Guidelines: #4 and #5, the website appears notable. I am One of Many (talk) 21:29, 22 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 02:03, 14 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 23:02, 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. ignoring the single-purpose accounts Secret ^account 04:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with chromatic harmony

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

Not a thing has improved since this article was last put up for deletion. It is still totally unreferenced, and in fact there's no evidence that any of these songs has any chromaticism (for example, a secondary dominant is a perfectly ordinary progression). From what I can see these are all likely perfectly ordinary diatonic music with modulations, altered chords, passing tones, etc., but in any case beyond the likelihood that nothing here actually fits the article title, chromaticism in popular music stopped being notable around, oh, 1895 or so. Mangoe (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, there is a place for this, but this is not it. I'm leaning to delete as an unsourced list per WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. And here is why:

1) It IS possible to reference this page. However, there is little precedence for referencing this type of information elsewhere on wikipedia; reference types vary quite a bit. If one looks at the "Composition & Structure" section of a song entry (ex. Hey Jude or Hallelujah), references vary from published music notation (which would only implicitly identify chromatic structures) to newspaper articles and blogs (which again, rarely explicitly state this valuable information). Therefore, in response to objections about referencing, it might be helpful to hear specific examples of what you are looking for (need it be a publish scholarly article in the journal of popular music studies? Does music notation or a chord chart suffice? Is a blog legitimate?). Deleting this page might implicate that we should delete all "Composition and Structure" sections from "wiki song pages."
2) A secondary dominant is not perfectly ordinary, and it ALWAYS involves chromaticism. Review the wiki entry or any music theory textbook on this topic and you'll see that this is true. You cannot be borrowing from a "secondary" key unless you borrow the chromatic notes of that key. Every structure on this page (with the possible exception of modulations or tonicizations of relative keys) WILL involve chromaticism, and almost definitely will involve chromatic harmony. The title of the entry is accurate.
3) The page still has issues, but deleting it is not the answer. Developing a culture of proper referencing (and again, it would be helpful to have a few guidelines) could easily be established, both here and elsewhere for music theory related Wikipedia. There may be another place for this list as well (perhaps the music theory wikibook?), but until a consensus is found for that location, why delete this substantial body of contributions?Jplazak (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The published music is a primary source requiring interpretation and thus unacceptable; musical criticism would be acceptable, but if such sources don't exist, then we cannot make the claim. But in any case a secondary dominant is not chromaticism; it's a perfectly ordinary tonic progression (a very brief modulation, in fact) that goes back to the beginning of the common practice period. That is what our article says, after all. And the same is true for the rest of these figures; in fact, they have names because they are part of the language of tonal harmonic analysis. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Music criticism & Music Journalism are pretty generic terms; if references to peer-reviewed work by "experts" are welcome here (and in many cases, these references do exist), what about blogs and forums? I can understand why a lead sheet might be considered unacceptable as a primary reference, however, they're good enough for the US copyright office. As for the secondary dominant not being chromaticism, we seem to be using different terminology. Chromaticism (as defined on the wiki page) comes in three forms: "modulation, borrowed chords from secondary keys, and chromatic chords." These are the same features that are cataloged on this page. It is true that chromaticism has been around for a long time. It is further true that chromaticism had a real heyday throughout the common practice period (which ended long ago). What is not true is the assumption that chromatic harmony is perfectly ordinary in modern and contemporary songwriting (in the popular sense). Yes, we have names for these structures. Yes, these names are part of the language of tonal harmonic analysis. But no, they are not perfectly ordinary when you listen to songs on the radio. Perhaps the objection here is to the term "songs," in which case the page might be renamed (again). Jplazak (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. if this is indeed a thing, then it should be a category (which does not need to be exhaustive), or set of categories instead of a list, which tries to be exhaustive. Bogger (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not convinced that this concept is notable. In any case, the qualification requirements contradict the article title. When that happens, then I have to think it is a non notable concept. The lack of references shows that no one is really writing about this concept. In fact the article seems to consider normal modulation to be chromatic. In that case, the notalbe list would be songs without chromatic harmony. Op47 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. If this page is to be deleted, it shouldn't be because the concept isn't 'notable' or doesn't exist. A few minutes research will reveal that chromatic harmony does exist, and the concept does include Secondary Dominants. 'Secondary Dominant' is also misunderstood here by some. A secondary dominant is by very definition, a chromatic harmony. It is a chord borrowed from another key / tonality used to perform a change of key to that secondary key. It is a chromatic harmony because it contains notes which are chromatic with respect to the key that the music is in up to the appearance of the secondary dominant chord. In order for it to be a secondary dominant it MUST be a chromatic harmony. It is one of a relatively few 'devices' or techniques that are frequently used to modulate the key of music. It is a staple in many genres (jazz, blues, etc).

It would be good if further details were included in the examples regarding which measure / bar the chromatic chord appears in, so they can be verified more quickly.

I personally found this page useful and very interesting when I stumbled upon it (I was looking for lists of songs with chromatic chords for ear training purposes) and I imagine many other musicians would find it useful or interesting.

Dale Newton (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mjaITr2NdkEC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=chromatic+harmony+secondary+dominant&source=bl&ots=4JWB1zyGxD&sig=OYLF1-QlvdY_VablU1yj4UhJskI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ncJOVLDuN8feaID3gYAF&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=chromatic%20harmony%20secondary%20dominant&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale Newton (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dale, it would make much more sense to have an article which listed examples of PD music showing the passage in question and providing the harmonic analysis. I mean, I can figure out where the modulation is in "Piano Man" if only because the the amount of melodic material in it is so scanty; in "Bohemian Rhapsody" there are so many modulations and altered chords that picking just one out is a little difficult. The sheer size of the list is a daunting thing, and it's only because almost all the examples are from the 1960s onward that it's as small as it is. Adding in the jazz age would make the list explode, as would the late Vicky and Edwardian stuff; it's largely limited in size (I'm guessing) because of the limits of people's music taste. And we're still at the problem that there are next to no citations (at least we have any now), and I remind editors that analyzing the sheet music or the chords is original research. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe. I agree that they all need to be referenced. In my opinion all examples of chromatic harmonies should be taken from works published by musicians/musicologists etc. As you say, it's easy to pick out modulation sometimes in music, but there are plenty of occasions where chromatic harmonies would would be considered 'tonization', so differentiation would need to be made. Also, 'borrowed' chords can take the same form but aren't considered 'modulations' if they don't lead to a key change. Can the page not be limited to music which has been analysed and for which the analyses of the harmonies are referenced? A list of this sort is potentially useful to musicians because in ear training we learn chord types by the sound, and a list like this acts kind of like a library of (musically relevant and often famous) examples. Also, using such examples is a great way to teach music theory. It's very engaging for learners when they have real examples. I'm constantly looking for widely known music with illustrative examples of theory in it. It would be great if Wikipedia had such information, not just regarding chromatic harmonies.

I'm not an expert on how wikipedia works, but I can't see why the page needs to be deleted. I sometimes see 'stub' pages on wikipedia. Could this page not just be edited/stripped down as necessary until it meets Wikipedia's standards (if necessary just to a poor stub) thus at least keeping it alive for people to add to it?

I don't think the list is so short because of the range of genres it includes. The examples could go on for 100 pages just using Top 40 chart pop music. One reason would definitely be that it takes most people a long time to check the chords and determine if they are really chromatic harmonies (not just diatonic harmonies with chromatic notes in the melody etc).

By PD music do you mean public domain music? Do you mean that it would be better to exclude commercial music from analysis? There are several reasons(some I mention) that taking examples from commercial music is advantageous. Why would it be advantageous to use Public Domain music and exclude commercial music?

Dale Newton (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note Jplazak is effectively a single purpose account for the purpose of editing List of songs with chromatic harmony. Dale Newton, is effectively a single purpose account for the purpose of editing this nomination for deletion. I would hope that the closer would take that into account. I am more than half minded to report this to the sockpuppet notice board. Op47 (talk) 20:01, 31 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) 17:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Judd

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

Makes claims of notability, but I'm unconvinced that this individual has enough notability outside a single event (naming the mockup space shuttle Independence) to warrant an article. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The individual does have notability beyond a single event. In addition to naming a shuttle, he has made further contributions to both the space and science industry and the entertainment industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourbamf (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved to meet the "notability beyond a single event" requirement. Please advise on how to further enhance it. Thanks.Yourbamf (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can the relister provide a short explanation as to why this article has been relisted? Still not sure what the article is lacking and why it is still being considered for deletion... Thanks, Yourbamf (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any significant coverage of this person that doesn't involve naming the shuttle. This appears to definitely be a case of BLP1E. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:58, 21 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 23:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject is currently a BLP:1E. This may change in time but right now, the subject simply doesn't have the reliable sources saying there's notable work beyond the one thing. EBY (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure how else to put this, BLP:1E Op47 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how the subject of this biography meets WP:BIO. Even the "one event" discussed above, winning a contest to name a shuttle mockup, hardly seems that notable in the context of an encyclopedia. Gnome de plume (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. This is WP:BLP1E. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:47, 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. Secret ^account 04:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Kassam

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

Delete - Vanity article, non-notable. If this wasn't written by Mr Kassam himself, it is an elaborate prank to implicate him. Qassamtopper (talk) 20:18, 14 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 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I assure you this article is neither written by Mr Kassam, nor an elaborate prank. The article is intended to reflect that Kassam is managing editor of Breitbart London, and to sit alongside the articles of other Breitbart London contributors, such as James Delingpole, André Walker and Milo Yiannopoulos. Other notable actions include involvement in the creation of the Student Rights anti-extremism group. The subject has also been the recipient of "Islamophobe of the Year" (although the caveat is that he encouraged his readers to vote for him). Sources include a profile in the Evening Standard, The Guardian, BBC.Lacunae (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete All praises and zero information. --Dhwanikaxoxo (talk) 23:48, 17 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 22:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note: Since this AfD was requested the subject of the article has been appointed as a senior advisor to Nigel Farage on developing party messaging, strategy, fundraising and publicity for UK Independence Party.Lacunae (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pile of rubbish about a non notable person. Op47 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite continual appearances of a new article every time Kassam is given some fake position or starts a new site, he remains non-notable. Having read User:Lacunae's argument, it's also in doubt whether his former Breitbart colleague André Walker deserves on either. The fact is Kassam is likely behind this continual reassertion of new articles, and the fact this one arrived just before being appointed to a new job is hardly coincedental. Westminsterstudent (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the user who has re-created this article, I must repeat that I am not affiliated with, or have any inside knowledge of the subject of this article. I take on-board your comments regarding other articles, though they should have no bearing on this AfD. I also state that this reassertion came probably a full month before the news of the subject's new job was announced. I would ask that commentators assume good faith, and give constructive criticism on how this article could be improved (should it be allowed to remain), given that the last AfD discussion (appeared to me, anyhow), to reach a consensus that the subject was marginal for inclusion. I specifically ask for unbiased and constructive advice on whether the subject's role as managing editor at Breitbart London, award of islamophobe of the year and UKIP role increase or not the subject's notability enough for inclusion. It appears the key issue is one of notability, and as yet, I am not entirely sure of how the subject's new role will affect this, though for a party which has won a national election (2014 Euros) it doesn't seem beyond the pail to me to include him in a proto-Lynton Crosby/Alastair Campbell type of situation. I also seek advice on the levels users would expect the levels of notability to be exceeded, (given the page is at present sourced with national news sources, would it be in-depth profiles? subject only profiles in the national news? etc...Lacunae (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only major national news source that actually is focused on Kassam is the first cited Guardian piece which merely mentions him joining a team. There are plenty of journalists, currently non-notable, who would meet the criteria if we went off that. Kassam seems to only be in his early 20s, and to be brutally honest would likely not be recognised or known by name by anyone on the streets of the UK, the centre of 'notability' for the subject. I am not saying in the future he may be eligible, but recreating a page each time the subject gets a new job is not the appropriate way. Say however Kassam is selected as a candidate for UKIP, or put on the NEC, I would happily say he is notable when joined with everything else. Currently it is simply too low, but could easily be fine in the future. Westminsterstudent (talk) 04:49, 28 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 deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G4 and salted. Although the text in both versions were different, the new version did not address the deficiencies of the old. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Vitale (author)

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP with sourcing issues - are there any RS at all? Previous editors have questioned this. Now this seems to have been created by WP:COI editor, and several WP:SPAs - see alegation of paid editing at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez the sourcing should be scrutinised to see if notable against WP:GNG WP:BIO / WP:AUTHOR Widefox; talk 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources either just mention (rather than focus on him), or are publicity appearances (which I'd argue really falls under WP:SELFPUB), or are just not RS at all (I don't know Morty Lefkoe is, but I'm more willing to trust the guy hanging around my nearest convenience store wearing a "legalize it" tee-shirt that doesn't appear to be referring to marijuana, Peter Tosh, or even Jamaica). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no AfD template on talk about the previous AfD, so I was unaware of the previous AfD closed Delete - this is a recreation of a previously AfD deleted. If deleting, can we salt it pls. Widefox; talk 22:15, 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, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haiqeem

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

Musician: lots of sources but don't see 2 RS to base article on to pass WP:GNG. Does claim of notability "about at #121" Indi chart / #24 another-chart count for MUSICIAN 2. or does the "national" chart have to be the top chart? One of set of SPAM COI articles allegedly from paid writing Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bert_Martinez Widefox; talk 21:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteOnly links appear to be either unreliable or links to pages advertising his services. Amortias (T)(C) 21:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creator and several accounts and IPs blocked, other articles have been speedied, leaving this and a couple of the articles pending deletion. Widefox; talk 11:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has a box of "References" with more in-lines links, just to fatten up the page. Poor quality refs. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:02, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cut to Create

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

Article displays little notability under WP:CORP; loosely promotional material for documentary produced by company, no references to any content ForgottenHistory (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local Houston company lacking coverage to meet WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, not discussed in reliable sources. Probably would've qualified under WP:CSD#A7, as I don't even see an actual claim of importance. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:06, 30 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. Secret ^account 04:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG per practically no documented coverage in independent, reliable sources. I first redirected the article to the founder Geir Bjørklund, whose notability also may be questionable, but this was undone. Iselilja (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT. Result by AFD was already "Delete" before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. I searched multiple database archives including NewsBank, LexisNexis, and Westlaw, and couldn't find any good source coverage. I agree with everything said by the nominator Iselilja about lack of notability and WP:SPA nature of other pages created by Vitalpost (talk · contribs), as well. There appears to be a conflict of interest going on here, suggest it should be reported to WP:COIN. — Cirt (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have pretty much the same thinking regarding a possible COI, but I am reluctant to pursue it very heavily due to pricacy concerns. The editor VP has mostly edited two articles, Bjørklund and CONEM, and if CONEM is deleted the issue will of course be moot for that one. Then just try to find a solution for the Bjørklund article. Iselilja (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please consider wp:BITE, not to bite the newbies, and be polite here. I see no COI problem, no need to SALT. Editor Vitalpost participated politely in 2012 AFD, pleasantly asking in this near-to-the-end diff what would be required for an article. AFD was closed in 2012 on "Too Soon" argument. Two years later, after the nonprofit has become registered, Vitalpost revisits and creates article, under substantially different circumstances now. Sure, Vitalpost has knowledge/interest about CONEM and/or about Geir Bjørklund, which is fine and good. Wikipedia wants experts to come and write about what they know about. Sure it is fine to give Vitalpost polite suggestion at their Talkpage that they should familiarize self with wp:COI guidelines (already sort of done, very mildly). But having an association with a topic is fine. Even in fact having an explicit COI does not require a person to "out" themself and does not preclude contributing.... it rather pretty much advises contributing and just being sure to participate cooperatively if/when there is disagreement on content. Vitalpost did good to re-open the article, with more information, no longer obviously "too soon". The decision here may be to redirect or delete, in which case Vitalpost could be advised not to restart the article, but rather develop more on the topic and submit to wp:AFC in the future, and/or to be involved in Wikipedia in other ways for a while. But "salting", as if Vitalpost had done anything wrong -- and they did not -- is unnecessary and would seem mean, would seem to be biting a positive contributor. --do ncr am 22:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NONPROFIT. The problems in the 2012 deletion remain. I do not see a WP:COI issue, just a problem with lack of communication about what is happening and why. If good sources of information about this organization were presented then the article could stand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It's a registered non-profit in Norway, documented by this registration link, accomplished since the previous AFD. It seems to me to be like many academic centers that are typically associated with a given university and which sponsor/promote a series of working papers and publications in a focused topic area. This is unusual perhaps for being an independent nonprofit. The list of publications it has sponsored / that it promotes seems focused, academic. --do ncr am 16:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: By academic center, i mean centers or institutes that meet definition "An academic center is a non-degree granting educational unit of the university engaged in research; instruction; or clinical, outreach, or related service. An academic center is defined by its mission and scope, not its title, and may be described as a center, institute, laboratory, or similar term." (an Ohio State University definition available [oaa.osu.edu/assets/files/caa/CenterGuidelines.pdf here]). I submit that Wikipedia coverage and standards for academic centers is not clear. There seems to be no category grouping them, that I can find, while there should be an article Academic centers and Category:Academic centers. Searching on "academic center" within Wikipedia brings one to various university article sections on academic centers, but also to entities that use the term in a different way, such as this one which is more like a tutoring center for undergraduate athletes.

About CONEM, it is not part of one university so is not a typical academic center either, but should just be required to meet general Wikipedia standard for academic centers (a standard which doesn't exist yet, AFAIK). I don't easily find news references about CONEM that would establish it meets the wp:GNG; maybe we are not searching on the right terms. However, it seems legitimate and I submit it seems better to keep than delete, pending more development in Wikipedia on centers like this. --do ncr am 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, a better alternative than deleting would be to Merge with Redirect to an appropriate list-article, such as List of environment research institutes. There needs to be world-wide List of research institutes (currently a red-link) or List of research institutes and academic centers (currently a red-link) which could be a redirect target that would naturally break out into country-specific lists and topic area-specific lists covering academic centers. There does exist Category:Research institutes by country and 3 area-specific lists for Greece, Pakistan and Seattle. And List of forest research institutes and List of environment research institutes but not the more general world-wide list and category. By the way I see Norwegian Food Research Institute as a CONEM-comparable organization with an article (in Category:Research institutes in Norway and in Category:Food science institutes). --do ncr am 17:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Doncram. I think due to lack of adequate sources we are pretty much left to speculations about the nature and impact of this centre. The home sites list a number of published peer-reviewed papers. Checking those papers, I can only see the founder Geir Bjørklund signing as affiliated with CONEM. The other authors list other affiliations. One of the papers have 11 cites, the others have so far none as I can see, so documented academic impact doesn't appear to be high so far. Bjørklund is according to our article "sceptical to conventional medicine"; so we are probably talking alternative medicine. The CONEM article lists three organizations the centre co-operates with: One is Melisa Medica Foundation which Quackwatch lists as a "questionable" organization (Wikipedia has an artice on the MELISA test); another is British Society for Ecological Medicine; one of that organization's predecessor British Society for Allergy and Environmental Medicine is also listed as "questionable" by Quackwatch. Because alternative medicine research if often controversial, I think we should be particularly careful about having an article about an institution in that area without good reliable sources. Iselilja (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well my !vote is "Weak Keep". I think it is unfortunate that Wikipedia does not have clearer practices and/or standards about coverage of academic centers, which is unfortunate for well-meaning contributor(s) here. I do grant that there must be many more important, more influential, more widely covered academic centers out there, which lack Wikipedia articles so far, and would be a higher priority to create. Given lack of clarity on what should be covered, I think it is fair and best to allow this to be kept as is, although others can disagree. If it is not to be kept as is, it is less hurtful, less wp:BITE, to merge the material and redirect to a list-article or elsewhere that can hold the valid references provided. I also don't object to it being merged and redirected to Geir Bjørklund, per Iselilja's identifying that it appears only Geir is referencing CONEM in published papers, so it seems CONEM & Geir overlap considerably. --do ncr am 22:37, 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. Secret ^account 05:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bazlur Rahman Lasker

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

Article was proposed for deletion by me, but ProD wsa removed. No evidence of any notability, he is mentioned once in a reliable source[5] but hasn't received significant attention from reliable sources, as required by WP:BIO. The other two sources in the article don't qualify as such (a blog that again only mentions him in passing, and a Rotary newsletter which again mentions the same fact in passing). His political office (vice president of the local division of a party) also isn't sufficient to establish notability. Fram (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 10 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 22:27, 18 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, – nafSadh did say 19:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The feathers of a peacock with the substance of a wren. Op47 (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough significant coverage to justify a WP:BLP article. The mention at Flag of Bangladesh says everything there is to say. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:42, 31 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. WP:SNOW and Non admin close. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Clube

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

Fails WP:BIO in WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, and WP:ATHLETE. jps (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Dean of the Astrophysics Department of Oxford University alone is notable. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- But we don't have any independent verification of this. Incidentally, there is no Astrophysics Department at Oxford. jps (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies (astrophysicist) is currently head of astrophysics at Oxford, which is part of the Department of Physics.[6] There are a few reliable sources pointing to Clube's association with astrophysics at Oxford, but I haven't been able to verify that he was Dean. -Location (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't currently a department of astrophysics at Oxford, but physics at Oxford has undergone several reorganisations over the years. I can't find any reliable evidence that Clube was ever head of any department at Oxford, however. Deans at Oxford are college posts (see Dean (education)#United Kingdom) and are not a marker of WP:notability (apart perhaps from the Dean of Christ Church who is the Head of House). Qwfp (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he also played seventeen first-class cricket matches, which also makes him notable. Harrias ^talk 16:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCRICKET seems to indicate otherwise. Just because it was a first-class cricket match does not mean it was a "major match". jps (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NCRICKET is poorly written, but the intention of the phrase "major cricket" is to blanket cover all first-class, List A and Twenty20 cricket. Harrias ^talk 06:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator states the article fails WP:ATHLETE, but it seems has failed to check out WP:CRIN. His appearances in first-class cricket matches (which are considered major cricket, be it county or university level in England) ensures the articles notability. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is absurd to say that every person who has ever appeared in a university cricket match is notable. That is not the intention of WP:NCRICKET. jps (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. Rightly or wrongly, that is currently the inclusion criteria for cricketers. Harrias ^talk 06:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has played a first-class cricket match, therefore, meeting WP:NCRICKET - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 07:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has played a first-class cricket match, and therefore meets WP:NCRICKET. As an aside I have requested a discussion of a re-write of the WP:NCRICKET criteria to replace the phrase "major cricket match" with a more precise list. My initial note can be found on the Talk page of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). — Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. A somewhat heterodox astrophysicist, but, I think, a notable enough one to meet WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. According to WorldCat, The cosmic serpent : a catastrophist view of earth history is held by 540 libraries worldwide, and The cosmic winter by 316. According to Google Scholar he has 5 publications with over 100 citations, all as first or second author out of two or three authors (so without the hugely multiple authorship common in e.g. particle physics). His research and theories have been the subject of significant coverage with multiple quotes from him in the Independent on Sunday (1994 open access), The Times (1990 NewsBank subscription or UK library card required), and The Sunday Times (1994 NewsBank subscription or UK library card required). There's also a short biography of him in the Dictionary of Minor Planet Names; I can only access the first couple of sentences, but they at least WP:verify his year of birth and that the cricketer and astrophysicist are the same person. Qwfp (talk) 11:34, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galay

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

Non-notable conlang, WP:COI. Sourcing is only to "The Galay Institute" (a Facebook page) and a self-published book by Alrah Fraser (this article was created and substantially edited by User:Alrah Fraser). No other significant independant coverage to be found. Does not pass WP:GNG. — Gwalla | Talk 18:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author has now added some sources, but one of these is rather unspecific - the name of and a link to a 269-page doctoral thesis by a third party. Good scholarly practice would obviously be to reference specific pages in the thesis. The other source (Blasi and Bjorklund) does not say what User:Alrah Fraser wants the reader to think it says. Miekkoja m (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is also to the book: 'The Complete Golden Dawn Initiate' by Steven Ashe - just referenced which I believe makes it notable now. Alrah Fraser (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Steven Ashe is, however, the creator of the language - as per the Galay group on facebook ("Galay is a visual language that is logographic, phonographic, and a posteriori. It was invented by BethSheba Ashe and created/developed by BethSheba and Steven Ashe." ) which makes NPOV seem somewhat unlikely there. A search inside "The Complete Golden Dawn Initiate" on Amazon.com gives no hits for "Galay", whereas a sample of other words shows that the search function has access to the text of the book (it doesn't for all books), so, I guess we need to say ^{[need quotation to verify]} regarding your claim that it's mentioned there. As a personal hint, Fraser, this is not the first time a fanboy has been so impressed with someone's work that he's tried pushing it on wikipedia with all kinds of miraculous claims. Just drop it. This is not the right forum to advertise a product/stroke your idol's ego. Further, your misuse of sources speaks volumes. Miekkoja m (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why did you move the ^{[need quotation to verify]} from the claim about IQ to the claim about increased logographic ability? Ultimately though, I am not sure this writing system really qualifies as a logography by the definitions used by linguists anyway, so anything a linguist says about logographies can only be applied with many caveats to Galay. Miekkoja m (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I did tag it for more input, but on reflection, I think it can go. LS1979 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly obviousWP:COI, Facebook not being a reliable source, a self published book could quite possibly be original research. Do we have a three strikes and your out rule? Amortias (T)(C) 21:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Appears to be a neologism that has not received any widespread acceptance. The final para about boosting intelligence, useful for children with special needs etc. sounds horribly like psycho-quackery. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with everything so far said. Self promotion by New Age panhandlers and not a conlang as properly defined either. Paul S (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go - how would you classify the Galay language then - if it's not a conlang??? When I added the Galay carriage to the temple calendar I made it a functional new conlang. And replying to the author who says it's not logographic? It spells out words with a picture of a wheel! There are some very misguided perspectives being passed around on the language you're debating here.

What are the Galay words for "cat", "mother" and "house"? What is its syntax for expressing a present statement of fact, and does that syntax differ from how questions are phrased? How many cases do Galay nouns use? How are verbs conjugated? If go into a store, how would I ask the shopkeeper about the price of a book? If Galay is a conlang, then you should be able to answer all of these questions. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IQ data is shown by a paper which basically states that when Chinese child migrants in America learn the alphabet instead of staying in China and learning mandarin - then their IQ suffers between 5% to 7% and that conversely when children are taken to China and learn a logographic language they do 7% better than their peers in America. The research that supports the claims on special needs is evidenced by the high degree of visual and pattern thinkers in the autistic community. Logographic languages match the predominantly visual styles of processing that *some* special needs children possess. I doubt it would help people with dyslexia and I would never claim that. I have a set of ethics and I hope that people will rewrite the page with their own very objective views on the language. I promise I shall not edit it further than adding the appropriate references requested. Alrah Fraser (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"logographic" and "phonographic" are descriptions of a writing system, not a language. It is not possible to have a "logographic language" or "phonographic language", only a language which is written logographically/phonographically.Paul S (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a mixture of an insignificant hobbyist's invention in artificial writing systems combined with a good dose of pseudoscience. Miekkoja m (talk) 18:13, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Leonardi

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:CREATIVE. Online sources are few and largely self-published or social media-orientated. LS1979 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography. Multiple searches are not turning up the independent 3rd party sources that are required to demonstrate WP:CREATIVE notability; nor does the subject's working life meet the WP:NACADEMICS criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photography is very different, but are some aspects of Leonardi's "Borderlands" perhaps inspired by Luca Nizzoli Toetti's "Almost Europe"? (Oddly, Google doesn't show them mentioned together. All it has is a page that includes one blog entry mentioning the one photographer and another blog entry mentioning the other.) Toetti doesn't seem to have an article in any Wikipedia; if he did and if it were up for AfD here, I'd defend it vigorously: there've been exhibitions, there's a book, there's been reaction to these. For Leonardi, there's much less, so far. If she's an "emerging" photographer, then give her time to emerge. And after emergence, we might consider an article for her that, please, would not list her claimed technical skills. As for this article, now: delete. -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 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.

United kingdom relations

The result was G11'd by RHaworth. Amortias (T)(C) 22:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

unneeded page of links to other Wikipedia articles with a very biased summary EoRdE6 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to fit the applied speedy criteria (G11), but unneeded duplication of what is already a category and deletable. LS1979 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This part qualifies it for G11: "It's undoubted that through language and culture, Britain has had more influence on world culture than any other country. The Parliamentary system is the shape for nearly all democracies in the world. The Military has been used as a template for many modern superpowers including the United States." EoRdE6 (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above, could probably have been dealt with under G11. Amortias (T)(C) 21:29, 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. Secret ^account 05:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Najm

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

I'm really not finding any substantial information about him in independent reliable sources and can't really establish notability for him. Parllay itself doesn't seem to have attracted note either. Per [7] it had only 14 employees a year ago and expected just to double by around now, so it isn't even notable on the grounds of being a large company. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just came upon this undeletion request from several years ago, so I didn't see the references it mentions before I submitted this deletion request. But are they satisfactory? One only mentions him in passing, one quotes him but says nothing about him beyond his position, and one is an automated list of his patents on a patent database search site. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —innotata 07:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —innotata 07:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 8 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) 04:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An overabundance of references have been added to the article, over 20 at this point. Among them, the only ones that talk about him are his own bio on the adSage website and his ZoomInfo bio. A couple of the sources have paywalls. A couple of them are patent websites that demonstrate that he holds patents. All of the rest mention him only for the purpose of quoting him about the topics of the articles (such as adCenter) and say nothing about him beyond affirming:

He's a Microsoft technical fellow.
He's a "distinguished engineer".
He's the general manager/lead engineer/"father" of adCenter.

These articles convey the notability of the organizations that he operates or has operated, but not of him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI issues - original author claims the articles namesake is his boss. WP:A7 as non noteable. Looks like ti should go. Amortias (T)(C) 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to assert notability based on generic profile-type pages and press release quotes by the subject of the article. No substantive coverage and ultimately nothing on which to base a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:40, 31 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 read the Bengali language references in the article. This person has acted in leading roles in some Bengali films made in Bangladesh. Meets notability criteria. (non-admin closure).Dwaipayan (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Symon Sadik

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

Non reliable sources that could pass WP:Notability probably Created for promotion. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 15:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NACTOR, have major roles in some notable movies. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:24, 18 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) 17:37, 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 KEEP. The article has several references. I read the Bengali language references listed in the article. This actor has acted/is acting in lead roles in several Bengali language films made in Bangladesh. Meets notability criteria. (non-admin closure) Dwaipayan (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bappy Chowdhury

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

No RS that can pass WP:Notability Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 15:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NACTOR, have major roles in a number of movies. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:26, 18 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) 17:36, 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. Secret ^account 05:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pandey Narmedeshwor Sahay

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

None of of the issues raised in the issues raised have been addressed. There are no links, in or out and no notability references MrMarmite (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —innotata 17:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —innotata 17:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 15 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) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject ~~Biographies of living people~~ needs to be well cited where this articles seems to be unreferenced which also fails the general notability guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a living person. This book mentions him as a "noted writer in Bhojpuri". Not enough on its own of course but shows there may be something to be found here. Note misspelling of the name in the page title. People are reminded that editors are entitled to remove a PROD tag if they object to deletion: Noyster (talk), 17:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Noyster: If there are any such sources, it should be included in the article and should be updated here. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 19:06, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of God (American band)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fear of God (LA)

Articles for deletion/Fear of God (American band) (2nd nomination)

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

Fails to meet WP:NBAND. No claim to notability and no cited sources. The article was voted "Keep" in a previous AfD on the grounds that it seemed probable that there exist sufficient sources to establish the subject's notability. That was nearly seven years ago, and in that time no one has been able to find even one source for the article. NukeofEarl (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Side note: I can't seem to get this page to link to the original AfD, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is no help on the matter. If someone could fix that, and maybe give me some directions for future reference, that would be appreciated.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD was under a slightly different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear of God (LA). (That AfD came after an A7 speedy delete was reversed and the article relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 20.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 15 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) 17:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Allmusic bio was cited in the article before it was nominated, so how does it have 'no cited sources' and how can it be true that 'no one has been able to find even one source for the article'? --Michig (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. The band is notable and the article can be fixed by editing. A minute's Googling found [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro De Abreu

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

I really on the fence on this one - I see this person as maybe notable, but also maybe not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 9 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) 03:28, 16 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, – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:26, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flex watches

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

Promotional page, with almost no true third party sources for notability. Extensive name-dropping. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we've started it but haven't substantiated any of our content other that their overview, definitely need to add the links and about the business and it's history. Do you know if there's a template with blank values on Wikipedia that I can fill in the for the rest of the body text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE22:49B9:20D9:572B:FA3:89B0 (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article about a subject that fails the inclusion guideline at WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 07:38, 16 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) 17:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable company with a promotional article. I am One of Many (talk) 05:49, 30 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 to William Shatner. Consensus indicates she fails WP:GNG, but redirects are cheap. Secret ^account 05:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Rand

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

The article tells us that Rand is an actress - but fails to tell us anything whatsoever about her acting career. Instead, it goes into great detail regarding her ten-year marriage to William Shatner. Being married to someone does not confir notability, per Wikipedia guidelines, and Rand's acting career seems to be almost entirely undocumented, as far as I can ascertain - and self-evidently insufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:NACTOR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gloria Rand clearly meets the general notability guideline because of the wealth of published sources about her life. Her notability does not need to be conferred by her acting career; the extensive coverage of her marriage is just as valid a justification of notability. Consider, for example, the Luo Yixiu article, which is a current featured article candidate. Luo Yixiu is notable solely because of her marriage to Mao Zedong. I see nothing relevant that makes this case different. Neelix (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are a 'wealth of published sources about her life', why does the article note cite them? Why does it tell us nothing about her life other than as Shatner's wife? As for the comparison with Luo Yixiu, there has been considerable academic discussion of Mao's first marriage, and on the effects it had on his political thinking. I cannot recall seeing the same regarding Rand and Shatner... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't "a wealth of published sources about her life" — there are sources about Shatner's life which mention Rand in passing, but that doesn't get a person over WP:GNG. And it's in no way comparable to Luo Yixiu being notable primarily for having been married to Mao Zedong — Mao was a national head of state, and his wives are accordingly (a) well-documented in their own right, and (b) of enduring historical and encyclopedic interest. The wife of an actor, however, does not inherit notability just for having been married to an actor. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are much more than passing references to Rand in the sources. For example, Shatner's autobiography discusses Rand extensively ([19]). That an article should be improved is not a reason for deletion. Neelix (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That an article fails to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines are perfectly valid grounds for deletion - and it is well-established Wikipedia policy that being someone's spouse does not in itself confer notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a person whose only claimed notability is as the former wife of a more notable person, and whose sourcing is not substantive coverage of her, but merely inconsequential acknowledgements of her existence in coverage where said spouse, not Rand herself, is the subject. That doesn't get her past WP:GNG in her own right, and nothing in this article as written gets her over any subject-specific inclusion rules. And as I noted above, the notion that she's in any way equivalent to a national First Lady doesn't even begin to wash — actors are not national heads of state. So it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

' I don't see anything to support Neelix's assertion that there is a "wealth of published sources about her life." Shatner's autobiography does not count toward significant coverage as it is not "independent of the subject" as required of WP:GNG. Even if it did count, it's not enough on its own. As such the subject fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Rand fails GNG, which I am not convinced she does, surely a merger with the William Shatner article would be preferable to deletion. The information currently located in this article is encyclopedic and properly sourced, and "Gloria Rand" is a likely search term. Neelix (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonable. I'm changing my preference to merge into William Shatner. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:34, 17 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) 17:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a clear case where Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED applies. She's an actress - what has she acted in? PK T(alk) 14:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PKT, do you feel that deletion is more beneficial to the project than a merger with the William Shatner article? As I argue above, the information in this article is encyclopedic and properly sourced, and "Gloria Rand" is a likely search term. Neelix (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way that she is currently mentioned in William Shatner's article is probably sufficient. There's not much to merge. PK T(alk) 19:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't the title "Gloria Rand" redirect there? Neelix (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is mentioned in many sources but only in connection with William Shatner. The article itself is more about Shatner than her. I am One of Many (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of not being able to use "Gloria Rand" as a search term for the relevant part of the William Shatner article? Neelix (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless she become notable in the future, it is reasonable to redirect to William Shatner. As far as merging, it looks to me that the Shatner article already has everything that is in this article, which isn't much. I am One of Many (talk) 18:16, 30 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. WP:BLPDELETE, without prejudice to a redirect j⚛e decker ^talk 00:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daryanne Lees

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

Article about a beauty-pageant contestant - a biography of a living person. I believe this fails the Notability criteria for Models. Witty lama 22:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at best, redirect to Miss Grand International Ugh. Miss Grand International is a very new pageant - only two years old. Miss Grand International 2013 was deleted at AFD very recently, and the pageant Daryanne Lees won was also deleted at AFD. Therefore Lees's sole claim to fame is that she won a non-notable pageant. The main pageant may pass notability, but the individual pageants clearly don't. At best, a redirect to the primary article seems reasonable. The other Miss Grand International, Janelee Chaparro, passes notability for being Miss Puerto Rico in Miss World, something Daryanne Lees can't claim. The sources are pretty primary and if she had won anything truly national, she might pass, but I think at present this person doesn't deserve anything more than a mention on the main page for the pageant. Mabalu (talk) 01:18, 8 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 20:23, 15 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) 17:22, 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 move. to Draft:Emily Care Boss. Absouletly none of the keep rationales gave a reason on why she meets WP:GNG, and a few of the keep commentators, along with a delete voter agreed that it should be moved until she meets WP:GNG in the future. Secret ^account 05:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Care Boss

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

This is the oldest unreviewed article on the New pages feed. I am not sure that the subject meets WP:BASIC. I may be wrong – if I am, please let me know and I will withdraw my nomination. Karlhard (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see how the subject would pass WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move back to Draft:Emily Care Boss; I could do some more work on it, and it may have been moved back into mainspace prematurely. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection whatsoever to the article being moved back to draft space. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move back to Draft:Emily Care Boss Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am the original creator of this article from some time ago, and did not understand the deletion process when it was originally removed or would have spoke up at that time.) Boss is one of the most notable designers and theoreticians on the Indie RPG game scene. She fits notability guidelines due to awards (Fastaval) and international GoH requests (Fastaval, Ropecon) and an extensive list of games. Comparative to other designers on the scene whose pages are not and never have been in challenge for deletion (e.g. Jared Sorenson, Clinton R. Nixon or Vincent Baker) her notability equates or exceeds and her wiki bio article are comparative. I will insert citations later today that brings it in line with the way that Baker's citations are documented. Spaceanddeath (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be most notable with references provided. Don't know how to call this – but this is not as notable as you speak so. Karlhard (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karlhard, I have updated and added some references. The comment above was to illustrate the strength of her article in terms of other articles on WP for comparable figures. Unless we are saying that no-one in the Indie Games community fits WP:BASIC. Is that your assertion? Spaceanddeath (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's irrelevant whether others in the same industry have more or less coverage and so are "more or less" notable. We call that an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Notability generally isn't judged in comparison to other similar subjects because it's possible for two people to have done the same thing but to have been the subject of different levels of coverage. Nobody is suggesting that "no-one in the Indie Games community" and that's a bit of a straw-man argument. Subjects are judged on their own merits. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not sure that being a "special guest" at a conference adds much by way of notability; I'm not sure we could consider the program note to be "significant coverage". St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi St★lwart Sorry, I didn't mean it to be a strawman, but was honestly trying to understand User:Karlhard's comments and thought that might be what he meant. This is my first article defense on WP so please bear with me. I read WP:OTHERSTUFF and now understand what you mean, I'll try to keep all the discourse rules in mind. I noticed in WP:OTHERSTUFF the clause about WP:BIAS which I think may be important in this case. I originally initiated this article after noticing that there was really big gender gap for indie game designer articles (as far as I can see, 100% male). I think there is there a case to be made that the deletion of this article (which is, I think, of equal merit to the other articles I listed) would further the bias regarding this topic.

In the meantime, I am still working to improve the article. Could I have a clarification on the conference honour: I did not include things I considered might be "special guest" status in a local conference. I only included the two I could find that seemed elevated - International invitations based on the body of work that Boss had created. Does that make a difference in this case?Spaceanddeath (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Anything you can do to help would be great. BOZ (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 16 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, – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Boss fits the Notability requirements under Creative Professionals, as she "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." and "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." In addition, deleting this article would extend the gender bias of articles in this category. Smokebomb (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably just about meets the notability guidelines and in borderline cases like this it's best to keep unless the subject has expressed a desire for deletion, which isn't the case here. --Rotten regard 21:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with WP:CREATIVE is that it functions as a double-edged sword - we might not have sources to substantiate WP:GNG but we still need reliable sources that verify the subject is regarded as important or has been widely cited. Two of those and we'd likely be at WP:GNG a lot of the time anyway. Conference guest lists won't cut it in that regard. If she's known for originating a significant new concept, we still need sources verifying that is the case. It's important to counter bias, but not at the expense of verifiable, encyclopaedic content. I'm happy to accept she passes both 1 and 2 of WP:CREATIVE but I still think we need a source and I don't we have one in the current citations list. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:49, 30 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 to Snoezelen. Any concerns about the targeting of the redirect or the merging of the Snoezelen article into Sensory room can be dealt with by normal editorial procedures. (Note: Almost all of the g-hits I get for snoozelum are from sites in the UK and Commonwealth countries, where the term may be in use to avoid the trademark problem noted by Ochiwar.) Deor (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snoozelum

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

per WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:NEO Ochiwar (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated, and also no refs, not even to a piss-poor source such as urbandictionary.TheLongTone (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice source coverage at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't substitute the template that's already at the top of every AfD for actual sources. Template:Find sources AFD is there to help you find sources to substantiate your argument, not to have other people do it for you. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this a synonym/corruption of snoezelen? The latter is discussed in depth at [20] and [21] and mentioned in a bunch of gushy local newspaper stories. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:08, 22 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) 17:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not find the nice coverage as insinuated by Cirt, the sources I find are mostly mirrors of this Wikipedia article or neologisms for Sensory room which exists already. This article thus fails WP:NEO. The article Snoezelen also exists already. If this is article is a corruption of Snoezelen as suggested by Sammy1339 perhaps a redicert is appropriate. Ochiwar (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC). Also the article Snoezelen states that: The term "Snoezelen" ... is a neologism (for Sensory room) and ... is a registered trademark of the English company Rompa which sells equipment for Snoezelen rooms. Thus Snoezelen also fails wp:neo and should actually be merged or redirected to Sensory room. Ochiwar (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be fine with a merge to Snoezelen. — Cirt (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Snoezelen. Probably could've just been speedied or boldly redirected. I'm not seeing any reason to think this isn't just a misspelling or alternative spelling, and runs into problems with DICDEF, NEO, GNG, etc. as per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:44, 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 no consensus. Secret ^account 05:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Griffin (boxer)

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

Historical but does not meet WP:NBOX. Fought some notable names but WP:NOTINHERITED. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Neither Boxrec nor CBZ show him ever fighting for a title. Fighting notable fighters does not make automatically make him notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Notability is not gained by fighting notable fighters (WP:NOTINHERITED).Mdtemp (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG. See [22] and [23](note that due to lifetime of boxer Internet records will be harder to find). Also note that WP:NBOX is not really appropriate for a fighter from this era. No major sanctioning bodies during his time (NYSAC founded in 1920, NBA founded in 1921) and Ring Magazine not founded until 1922 so criteria 1-3 cannot apply and likewise criteria 4 only applies from 1974 onward. Therefore I dont think not meeting WP:NBOX carries any weight.RonSigPi (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They still had world champions and he never fought for a title. The sources are mainly fight results, a passing mention, and an announcement of his death. He doesn't inherit notability from having notable opponents.Mdtemp (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to them having world titles back then, until Joe Gans black men fight for world titles. Gans won it in 1902, well after Griffin's prime so he could never fight for a title since he was black. And much like other sports, one minority fighting for a title did not open the floodgates. For example, Jackie Robinson may have played in the majors in 1947, but every team didnt have a minority player until 1959. Similarly, no way someone like Griffin ever had a chance to fight for a title, so no reason to hold that against him.RonSigPi (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Colored Heavyweight championship and he never fought for that either.Mdtemp (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jack Johnson's (alleged) best fight, not just another opponent. Also (apparently) had the longest reach in his day. Counts for something, I'd say. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Having a long reach is not a notability criteria. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Found these refs trying to more strongly establish GNG - [24] - A retrospective 20 years after the fight took place. Seems like lasting coverage to me. [25] - Three paragraphs dedicated to Griffin written over 100 after the fight took place. [26] - another fight reference. We are taking about a fighter that fought over 100 years ago. I think the ability to find even this many online references for a fighter that died over 100 years ago is very telling and shows GNG.RonSigPi (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that none of these articles are about Griffin. Two are about Jeffries and one about Johnson. Of course, Griffin is mentioned in articles about people he fought, but I'd like to see an article focusing on him. Papaursa (talk) 21:12, 17 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) 17:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fought to a very high level demonstrated by a win and two draws against Jack Johnson. Coverage is sufficient for basic sourcing. This isn't the sort of boxer we should be excluding from the encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can't be inherited from those he fought. Also, when they fought Johnson was just starting out, while Griffin was an experienced veteran with close to 30 fights. There's a reason Johnson won only 4 of his first 11 fights (which is when he lost to Griffin).Mdtemp (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson had been fighting for 4 years when Griffin beat him and almost five years by the time of the second drawn fight, which was just 4 months before Johnson beat Frank Childs who was then world colored heavyweight champion, and less than 8 months before Johnson himself won that title, so Johnson was hardly starting out and was in pretty good nick at the time. --Michig (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Johnson's first fight was 3 years (and 3 days) before he fought Griffin (an 11 year pro). It was also Johnson's 10th fight and Griffin's 37th, so there was a clear difference in experience. However, that doesn't deal with Mdtemp's point--that Griffin is not notable simply because he fought Johnson, regardless of the results--because notability is not inherited from your opponents. Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 30 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reptiles and frogs of the Eastern Highlands

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

THis is just a list of animals that live in certain part of Zimbabwe. It has no encyclopedic value. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous such articles (see Category:Lists of reptiles by location for examples). The contention by the nominator that the subject of this article makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia is not supported. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not see why a list of herps in a biodiversity hotspot is not suitable for an encyclopedia.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Roslan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:40, 23 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) 12:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 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) 01:17, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Whereabouts

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

Non-notable band. Band on the verge of being notable, but also on the verge of fading into obscurity Bogger (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bogger (talk) 15:14, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The nominator's statement is a fair description of the situation. There are a few press articles about this band, notably including the cited Irish Mirror article.[27] Google reveals other brief mentions that suggest that the band may be on its way to some level of prominence in Ireland, at least. But I couldn't find additional solid sources. If more coverage turns up during the pendency of this AfD, I'd reconsider.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they haven't quite managed to meet the notability guidelines for bands. --Rotten regard 21:36, 30 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. Duplicate of List of Bugs Bunny cartoons with inappropriate use of editor's name in title, so nothing to salvage. Note that speedy deletion was previously declined for the curious rationale that it duplicated Bugs Bunny. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13jospin/bugs bunny complete collection

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

Declined speedy. Duplicates Bugs Bunny. Even if the content of this article is merged, the article title is not a plausible redirect, so this article probably has to go. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the creator's comment on the talk page ("because it is a simple way of remembering all the bugs bunny cartoons"), I think they are thinking of creating the likes of List of Bugs Bunny cartoons. However, Yunshui's decline of speedy is also valid, if we repurpose this into a Bugs Bunny cartoon navbox, which is yet to exist according to my search. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 14:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 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 keep. Excellent rescue work by GB fan §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Shannon

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

Local High School football coach with no notable national coverage whatsoever. A cursory glance through Google, Yahoo and other search engines barely yield any results for this Bob Shannon, most results back refer to the New York radio personality. Basically it looks more or less a self promotional page. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the recent improvements to the page and the various sources listed, I believe it fulfills the WP:GNG and WP:BLP.Aytea (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has sources from CNN, ESPN, USA Today, Associated Press, Chicago Sun Timesa and others. This is all significant coverage from reliable sources and they are all independent of Bob Shannon. When I searched for Bob Shannon I found many references about him. He meets the basic biography guideline and the general notability guideline. GB fan 15:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GB fan. Amply passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page reads like an advertisement/self-promotion (e.g. USA Today "title") for a very minor staff member of high schools, not even colleges. Googling his name suggests he is either a radio host or a boxer--in short, other people who are more notable than him come up in google search results instead. The page fails to be encyclopedic as there is no mention of the sports science techniques he uses, nor is there anything about his background/education. It reads like a CV/resume for a minor school staffer trying to get a book deal or a job...It is also a stub and highly unlikely to ever become a full-fledged GA article, as there is simply not enough information out there for such a minor staffer. The page might be misleading when it mentions President Clinton, who was on the campaign trail, and thus talking to anyone and praising any and all potential voters, even minor school staffers.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How does USA Today "title" make the article read like an advertisement/self-promotion? Can you point to specific sentences or areas that make it look like this article is being used to promote him? If you can we can fix that, this is not a reason to delete the whole article. If you google 'Bob Shannon' other people show up earlier in the list. This Bob Shannon shows up for me on the second page and again on the fourth page of results. The location within the results have nothing to do with how notable someone is. If you just add the word 'football' to the search there are lots of hits on the first page. Not having all the information someone would want about a person in the article does not make them non-notable. That is not a reason to delete an article. Will this article ever become a GA, probably not. Right now a little over 0.6% of the articles are GA or above. Will 70% of the articles on Wikipedia ever become GAs, probably not. Does that mean that we should delete all those articles because they will never become GA? Finally, what is misleading about the statements made in regards to the 53 Faces of Hope and Bill Clinton? The small paragraph reports what the sources say. Have you read the sources to see if it is misleading? Have you read any of the sources used in the article? GB fan 17:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont think there is any strong point in deleting it.AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have a five year old template suggesting each of these "coach of the year" coaches are likely notable. Nomination is simply incorrect in claiming he is a "Local High School football coach with no notable national coverage whatsoever. Credit to GB fan for improving article.

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GB fan 02:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GB fan 18:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GB fan 18:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is ample coverage from reliable third parties. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the exception that proves the rule: 99.9% of high school sports coaches are not notable. The subject of this article, however, appears to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:50, 28 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get Off My Ship: Ensign Berg v. the US Navy

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

No references, citations, category's may be added later if those thing (namely References) are provided. Crazy131 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being unreferenced is not a good criteria for deletion. The book sounds interesting and the article has potential Gbawden (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was mentioned in Time magazine which I believes gives it notabilit and is in number of libraries according to Worldcat Gbawden (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fascinating topic about a deceased individual who is no longer alive. Additional sources with other search parameters including Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book was also mentioned in the Washington Post, and their story is being adapted into a feature film according to Jeffrey Stanley's author bio at http://blog.amtrak.com/amtrakresidency/ (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak keep. The book has a couple of reviews that focus on it specifically, but it seems largely to be mentioned as an additional reference when discussing the Berg affair, and we have an article on Berg. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 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. WP:SNOW -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrukh-Salman Rivalry

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

Does rivalry between two actors need a separate article? I don't know where to redirect this, hence chose AfD. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even show there is a rivalry. Anyway, a lot of 'rivalry' stuff is newspaper generated (to boost sales) and occasionally management orchestrated (as possibly with the 'soprano fights' of Handel's day...). Peridon (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Has been appropriately tagged for such now as well. Just ridiculous Cannolis (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I'm not sure about CSD A1, if it is a valid reason; but still delete as per above and nomination. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - huh? Bearian (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Jethwarp (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to let you know that this doesn't falls under any criteria for speedy deletion. An admin removed the {{db-multiple}} tag.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And another has removed one for 'attack or negative...' Peridon (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly un-encyclopedic. ow@!s (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extra speedy 17:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Mil Gaya (song)

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 12:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONGS. No third party coverage. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasons. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 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 keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shiulibari

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 12:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quiet notable. before nominating please see WP:BEFORE Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mentioned in scholarly sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this brand new decent stub that is now sourced and further sourcable. Seems a bit problematic to send an improvable topic to AFD within hours of its creation. We are self-admittedly imperfect and a work in progress after all. Let its author continue in good faith and revisit later. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:15, 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. Notabily has been clearly established, article has appropriate references.(non-admin closure) Dwaipayan (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bipasha (1962 film)

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 12:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - obvious keep. Passes WP:Notability. Casting and Director all are acclaimed in their own rights. Jethwarp (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems quite notable to me. The article needs work, and should be tagged for it. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Bipasha (1962) Agradoot Uttam Kumar Suchitra Sen

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

Keep as sourced and further sourcable stub on a film that has become part of Indian cinematic history. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above is clearly notable this notes it was one of the popular films in Bengali Cinema by the famous Bengali acting pair Uttam Kumar and Suchitra Sen which are classics in the history of Bengali Cinema. .[28] [29] [30].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:14, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ude Jab Jab Zulfein Teri

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 11:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence that it meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. It might actually be spelt Ude Jab Jab Zulfen Teri, but I can't find any reliable sources for that either. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see this article being expanded. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ajeeb Dastan Hain Yeh

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

Non-notable and unreferenced. Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. --Rotten regard 21:32, 30 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. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation (CJCUC)

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

This is cross-wiki-spam for a travel agency (they mainly sell holidays in Israel combined with bible lessons). In the german-language wikipedia the deletion is already being discussed and we thereby found lots of false assertions in this blantand advertising. For example the ad claims 150 Evangelikal pastors were brought by the CJCUC to Israel. The source says that 30 (!) were invited by an Israeli ministry. Notability isn´t given as well since all press-sources only marginally mention the CJCUC. The subject of the coverage is never the CJCUC itself. And User:Omert33 was banned from german-language wikipedia because of insults in the discussion. Weissbier (talk) 10:01, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, your claim is unjustified and unfounded. CJCUC is a well-known, well-rooted and highly respected institution which is known throughout the world. I ask that you not remove the article as it would be a mistake. I have stumbled upon countless other articles which provide an infinitely lesser value than this article which only strives to shed light on a much needed topic and institution. Keep. --Omer Toledano (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 09:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N. I don't understand the nominator's rationale or his assertion that this is just a "travel agency". I added several reliable sources to back up the claims; this is a verifiable, active, and, may I say, controversial interfaith organization in Israel. The page only needs some editing to remove the promotional tone for the organization. Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the breathless allegations made in the nomination, the article I see includes plenty of the reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reasoning. Plenty of third party sources to back up claims. Tinton5 (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article is written in WP:NPOV and has sufficient WP:V & WP:RS making it WP:N. The nominator's objections boil down to a simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT which is not a reason to delete. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of above. Plenty of third party sources to back up claims, which I checked individually (including Ministry's) and then assisted the article's translation into (in Italian) --Monozigote (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. You guys are overstrained to a) understand what I write (may be my bad english) and b) to check the sources yourself to see that the "articel" blantantly lies in most points. Well, thats not my problem. So keep your travel-agency-advertising if you like it so much... Weissbier (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC) P.S.: And since I am just a heathen and not into religion, I only dislike dishonest advertising. What them christians or jews do is rather dull for me.[reply]

- @Weissbier: AfD discussions, and your responses, need to be based on WP policies and if need be one may point out faulty logic or assumptions of users, but at no time should anyone do what you have now done with this latest gratuitous offensive pejorative comment that clearly violates WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL as well as inciting WP:BATTLEGROUND. Kindly edit or remove this last comment or you may well face penalties at WP:AN/I. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. After cleaning up the cruft, assertions, and peacock language, I think there is something left to keep, especially in light of the sources. It's meh - not my thing - but it seems to be barely notable. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 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 redirect to Kudallur. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koodallur

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

It must be moved to a SandBox 115ash^→(☏) 09:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ - WP:A10. The original article is Kudallur. Instead of AfD, you should have tagged CSD. Qualifies for CSD A10 - the title is not a plausible redirect & it contains no references and nothing worthy of a merge. Harsh (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Agree that it is a plausible redirect as per Takeaway . Harsh (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kudallur. It is a plausible redirect.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kudallur. "Koodallur" is an often used alternative transcription for കൂടല്ലൂര്‍. See for instance: here in The Hindu newspaper, and here in the Kerala govt. website. The text of the Koodallur article is copied ad verbatim from www.kudallur.com. - Takeaway (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect oo = u in many transcriptions of Indian languages. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 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 delete WP:CSD#A7, for the third time, and salt. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Avinandan Jana

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

Article about non-notable student and probably non-notable web-developing company. Looks like it fails WP:NOTLINKEDIN. LS1979 (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Qualifies for CSD A7. Harsh (talk) 09:53, 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. Secret ^account 05:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines national football team in 2014

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

According to Banana Fingers, the article is redudant and is not necessary because there is already the article, Philippines national football team fixtures and results Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article for deletion is specific to the football results and fixtures in 2014. The articles lists scorers for each side (not only the Philippine side), lists the referees, kits used, and stadium if available. I plan to either split the Philippines national football team fixtures and results into seasons or years or to summarize the article to only include the scoreline, location and competition of each matches and create articles for each season. This is similar to result and fixtures articles of Australia and Japan.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the likes of Australia and Japan, there is actual info available specifically for matches the further back you go. Can't say the same for a country like the Philippines. Therefore the current fixtures and results page is substantial. If you want to know more about a certain match, then there's the specific tournament pages. For non tournaments, you can provide multiple sources for more info. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I believe the football infobox should be integrated on the the main results and fixtures match to accommodate additional info such as the scorers from the opposing side, the referees, the stadium venue if available and as you said if backed by sources especially if the match is a non-tournament one. I suggest using the Azerbaijan national football team results's format.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:52, 23 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to existing article. Giant Snowman 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. No reason article shouldn't exist in one form or another. Nfitz (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless as there is already an article about those matches. Kante4 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just to make it clear. As I've said, current results page is substantial. Banana Fingers (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ Merge - Not notable enough for a stand alone article. IJA (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable year for this team, so fails WP:GNG inherently. Not suitable for merging per WP:NOTSTATS as no sourced prose to merge. No need to redirect as the cumbersome nature of the title means it is an unlikely search term. the existing all-time article suffers from significant NOTSTATS issues itself, but is more than enough for now. Happy to see a fork in future is sufficient non-routine sourced prose can be found for the 2014 season that it is required. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 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 Speedy Keep. Nominator withdraws nomination and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Alianza Hispana

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

Article is cited entirely by the organization's own records. No indication that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator (at least for now) – given that the article is being actively edited and there are secondary sources that cover the organization in GB (although I am not sure if there is enough detail in those sources to be considered WP:SIGCOV), I am withdrawing the nomination, with the possibility of re-nominating if the notability issues are not significantly addressed. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is true that as written, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY (NGO). However, a search through Google Books suggests that there exists significant coverage in independent, reliable media; GB reports 300+ results for "La Alianza Hispana" boston, and while I saw only passing mentions, they seem substantial enough to suggest the topic is notable. I recommend keeping, but tagging with various required copyediting templates, from underlinked/dead end to self-published source and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is being actively developed as part of a class assignment -- I just added the notice to the talk page (the student had forgotten to add the notice.) Since I'm the ambassador for the course, I will also note that some other students in the class will help with peer review, as will I later in the semester, and your comments on needing additional outside sources are well-taken. This org does have substantial coverage in independent media, we just need to work to get the article to fully represent that. Any other suggestions for improvement are welcome and appreciated! It's great for the students to see your feedback. AmandaRR123 (talk) 21:22, 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. — east718 | talk | 04:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC) 04:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yashu Dhiman

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Prior virtually identical article was csd'd as was another version of the spelling. John from Idegon (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, I didn't notice that this was deleted several times before. I was the admin who declined the CSD, I'm gonna go nuke the article now. — east718 | talk | 04:01, 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 merge to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Gott

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

Does not meet WP:BASEBALL/N nor GNG. WP:TOOSOON John from Idegon (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wow literally five minutes after I created it. That's gotta be a record. Anyways Keep, as he passes WP:GNG from the sources I put on the article.--Yankees10 03:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which ones, exactly? Minor league players are NOT notable. Read WP:BASEBALL/N. There are only three reliable source references on the article: Fox and ESPN discussing a six man trade, which is obviously NOT discussion of him in detail, and the Fort Wayne, Indiana newspaper, which is detailed, but nowhere near enough to assert GNG notability, especially since all that is discussed is his minor league career. He appears to have potential. Why not just wait until he actually plays in the bigs and then definitely is notable? And yes, I did nominate it quickly, because I don't see any reason to waste time on someone who is by definition not notable. John from Idegon (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taking a look again, you may be right. These: [31][32][33] would be used to support GNG, but it would probably take another article or two to pass GNG. It should probably me merged.--Yankees10 04:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No comment on notability yet as sources are still coming in, but just a clarification: Minor league players don't have the presumed notability of MLB players, but they may still meet WP:GNG. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players. Most of the sources are routine reporting of his minor league or college career and not enough for stand alone article. Spanneraol (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was not aware of the list article. As nominator, I would have no objection to a speedy close and merge. John from Idegon (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to wait in case others find sources I did not.--Yankees10 04:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:EricEnfermero pulled up some really good refs here, for example: [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] therefore meeting WP:GNG. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 20:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the links above are from team or league sites, which makes the coverage essentially routine and local. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players. Alex (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Thought that I was on to something when I saw the Baltimore Sun reference, but it was about his baseball career as a preteen. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim minor league players. Not quite enough for GNG as of yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 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 delete. Meets speedy criteria A7. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Grutchfield

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

Non-notable youth, not mentioned in only reference, a number of hoax comments throughout article. CSD removed by IP (after removed by article creator) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:54, 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 00:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian angel (video game)

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

Non-notable video game to be released. Creator of the article has a name that implies affiliation with the creator of the game. No sources. No related results on Google. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, the game is not notable enough to merit a page. Indeed on the page itself it says, 'Not much info has been released.' No references are given to third party sources and nothing turns up on a Google search. I would suggest deleting it for now and recreating the article if, as we get closer to 2016, more information is released thereby increasing its notability and addressing the other concerns which have been made. Nyctimene (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is also worth mentioning that no proper article links to the page and it links to no other article. This, coupled with the fact that there are no Google hits for the game, make it incredibly unlikely anyone would search for the page. Nyctimene (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMHO "Currently in development" + "Not much info has been released" = WP:TOOSOON. BTW There are some platforming flash game out there that is also called Guardian Angel(s) apparently, and that is just plain NN. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 14:45, 23 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) 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 14:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I think "TOOSOON" is generous. This article is about something that not only doesn't exist and has no proof it ever WILL exist, much less be notable enough for an article. EBY (talk) 01:50, 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 to Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company. Redirected to Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company. Anything worth merging can be recovered from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up & Go

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

Does not seem to meet WP:Not, 2 of the references are first party and the only third party source is built around the press release. This article read much like a press release/advert. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company. From what I have found, overall coverage in multiple reliable sources is not quite enough. Source examples include [42], [43], [44]. The coverage is not significant enough to qualify the topic for a standalone article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Northamerica NealeFamily (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe a merge would suffice. This products only claim to notability was it was listed by some health group as misleading and the company fired back with a press release countering the health group, as I am sure almost all breakfast to go drinks did. If anything a single sentence to cover this the corporations article, but even then it gives it too much attention.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:24, 10 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 20:28, 15 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 02:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article with a weak Merge The controversy over their protein content claims seems to be all they are known for. Perhaps that deserves a line in the parent company, but certainly not a standalone article. EBY (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted, a merge won't be performable. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J.T. Yorke

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

Mostly per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Cameron and the nominator's rationale there. To directly quote that nominator, "Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary." Gloss • talk 03:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add the following articles to this nomination. Gloss • talk 03:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that these articles should be considered individually, they're just too different to be considered as a group. I'd be shocked if there isn't enough coverage for an entry on Joey Jeremiah, for instance. I'd like to ask the nominator, what steps did you take to check the notability of each entry? But if you do want to consider them as a whole you need to put a notification on each page and alert the creator of each page. I'm withholding my input until I have a chance to research the subject a bit more. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologizes, I only just now saw this. Admittedly, it was a risky move putting all of these together. However they all have the same common issues. Notability, lack of coverage in terms of sourcing and finding other information about the characters, etc. They are all covered adequately in articles such as List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters and List of Degrassi characters. Gloss • talk 16:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. My big concern is that we need to check each article to see if they meet WP:GNG. According to these guidelines "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." So a subject may be notable even if the article doesn't adequately show it yet. That's why I asked what steps you took to check the notability of each subject. We also need to make sure each article is properly tagged for deletion. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:44, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 15 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 02:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the last comment, yes I checked the notability of each subject and I fully believe that not one character listed is notable enough for their own article. However, for the sake of this particular AfD, I'm going to re-focus it on the J.T. Yorke article, and likely focus on one at a time. Gloss 16:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can find reliable sources that confer notability (see here, here, and here). The article needs work but AFD is not cleanup. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:45, 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 deleted by User:JamesBWatson per criteria G11 and G5. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 00:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Party 2:Bloody Party

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

Fails WP:NF; zero coverage outside Wikia. Blackguard 02:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third party coverage, fails NF. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 07:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, arguably no third party coverage at all, clearly not notable. Jinkinson talk to me 12:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable like Haunted Party, which will be resoundingly deleted soon. This article being created just yesterday while the first film has built up its delete !votes seems like trolling. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way TOO SOON, if ever. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero notability. Obviously created by a block-evading sockpuppet of the creator of first article, with the same terrible writing style. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:15, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gheorghe Pănculescu (engineer)

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

I think it's time to look more closely look at the references for this article. Most of the links are dead, so we can only take for granted what Ziare.com says about his role in the design of Eiffel Tower. I can't corroborate this information with any other source, it only comes up in marginal Romanian protochronistic sources that are also responsible for the false rumor that Eiffel tower was made with steel from Reșița. - Andrei (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —innotata 17:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about this book ? Razvan Socol (talk) 11:56, 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 15 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, NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [vote added below--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)]. I have no idea if this is of any help. I looked at the dead links in the Wayback machine, then used Google translate, and had mixed success:[reply]

I found nothing good for the first link [45] -- well, nothing that actually brought up anything.
An old version of Ziare link was found here:[46]. It talks about the article subject.
The link to histmuseumph failed for the newest copies, but this one worked: [47]. The article seems to talk about Stănescu but not Pănculescu.
I didn't check out [48] because it's a blog, and I was too lazy.
The last link also was found in the Internet Archive: [49]. It at least mentions the article subject.

I have no idea if these articles provide the necessary information, nor if any of them pass as reliable sources. I have no more energy right now -- plus I know nothing about the subject -- but I'll try and figure it out later. Anyone who knows something about this area would be a big help! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. After further fumbling around on Romanian and French sites, I'm left with the impression that he might be notable, but notability has not been proven. However, given the book cited by Razvan Socol, above, I'm inclined to give the article the benefit of the doubt. Is there anyone who can help with this? I could certainly be convinced to change my vote.

I spent a lot of time going around in circles, but never found further evidence of notability.
It would be good if someone were able to comment on the book referred to by Razvan Socol, above. I can't tell if the book is considered a reliable source. Based on the title (something like "Engineer George Panculescu - Legend and truth"), I'm guessing it provides in-depth coverage of the subject. I wasn't able to translate the text.
Additional sources I found were not reliable (blogs and such).
On one of the unreliable sources [50], there was a claim of a connection between Eiffel and Panculescu -- followed by a response (dated July 10, 2010) that Panculescu was not even mentioned in Eiffel's work, and which provided one hopelessly long citation, but which indirectly led me to a document called "Communication de M. Eiffel sur les travaux de fondation de la tour de 300 mètres" at this link [51]. This seems to be the document mentioned in the Wikipedia article. It's quite possible I missed it, but I didn't see Panculescu's name in that document. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:32, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eirik Vaage

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

Self-promotional autobiography. No evidence of significant coverage by independent reliable sources, nor notability under WP:CREATIVE. Kolbasz (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 15 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, NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom Gbawden (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't a single cite, so I did a search. He does have a company, he does take pictures, he does promote things. I looked at the Norwegian and other Scandinavian sites as well and just didn't find notability. Agree it's an autobiographical article of a non-notable subject. EBY (talk) 02:10, 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 No consensus. Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psychogram

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

Non-notable fringe theory. Note that the "sources" are self-published and even the anecdotal "evidence" is unsourced. Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced and unsourceable fringe blither and OR. Flush twice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Search of major US news revealed only a few scattered hits, nothing consistent; nothing much in international news, nor in psychology-related sources, there was a mention here but without much context. Merriam-Webster does have a listing for the term which it defines as a description of the mental functioning of an individual; especially : the pattern of responses to a projective technique (as the Rorschach test); my guess is it used to be a term occasionally used in conjunction with lie detectors and Rorschach tests, but I see no indications that it is used much currently. Possible fictional use here as a Ghostbusters-type helmet. Given the lack of consistency, not much signs of use, and piddling pageview stats around 10/day I think we can pull the lever twice as per Dominus Vobisdu.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The Psychogram is a well organized and objective method of handwriting analysis. Wellingham-Jones, P. (1989). Evaluation of the handwriting of successful women through the Roman-Staempfli Psychogram. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 999-1010 is a supporting study that used the Psychogram. Let me see if I can find more.

Investimate (talk) 15:45, 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, DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or rather, stub and move to Wiktionary. What a lot of non-notable waffle, quite free of reliable sources. I've stubbed it into a concise definition, per the invitation in the template ("Feel free to edit the article"). You're welcome. Obviously it'll now need to be moved to Wiktionary, but that should wait till this discussion is closed. Not sure if Collins and Merriam-Webster can serve as references, once it's moved? The previous references, four books, seem awfully in-universe. They're not reliable third-party sources at all. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Move to Wiktionary I agree, a definition is all this should be.--Auric talk 01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auric, why then did you add a stub template that encourages the reader to help Wikipedia by expanding it? :-( That doesn't make sense to me. I've removed the template. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry about that. I saw the suggestion after I applied the stub template. Then my computer froze, so I couldn't remove it.--Auric talk 12:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But I sometimes wish we had an anti-stub template: "This is a very short article that says it all. You can help Wikipedia by not bloating it up." Bishonen | talk 14:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep Changing from delete to weak keep after article being pared down and hunting a little further. If kept, I'll try to improve it, but my sense is there is not one specific meaning of psychogram but that the term has been used in different senses, and there is no clear definition at present. First sense is composite psychological measurement, a diagram, usually in the form of a circle, mentioned in a source from 1950 and 1959 and perhaps developed by a few psychologists such as Dan Anthony in 1960s with sources such as this one and non-RS sources such as this one with a book by Anthony here, but which never caught on within the mainstream psychological academic establishment, possibly because there was no consistent sense of what psychograms were or how they should be used. A second sense is a term in handwriting analysis (possibly related to the first sense). A third sense is related to the first, but with less emphasis on measuring personality and more on measuring psychological perception, with the term being used in conjunction with the Rorschach projection technique, such as here and here and here. There are other senses too, like it appears as a book title in a fiction book as well as the title of a non-fiction self-help book in 1975 (which doesn't appear to have caught on sales-wise). Illinois State University named its newsletter Psychogram. It was used by a poet to describe a type of poetry. The term appears briefly in 1896 in connection with early vision experiments. Still, all that said, I do not think there is a strong case for choosing keep, only a weak case.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice research, Tomwsulcer. I know it's a real word and a real concept; or rather, as you show, the word refers to several not very closely related concepts. Don't you think it would therefore need several articles, if kept in Wikipedia at all? We don't have articles of the format "X means either a, b, or c." That's actually the format of disambiguation pages. So, wouldn't your information above fit best in Wiktionary, unless you can find so much material in reliable sources that, say, three separate Wikipedia articles would each have some substance? (But then perhaps you can.) Bishonen | talk 14:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmm, good question, Bishonen, I am not really sure overall about what is best. I think an article of the format ""X means either a, b, or c" is possible since the meanings are somewhat related (in the field of psychology, which sometimes encompasses perception as well as handwriting analysis). My sense is the meanings are not clearly distinct enough for psychogram to be a disambiguation page, or whether they belong in Wiktionary either. My sense is Wikipedia does have many articles which have somewhat ambiguous terms; I've worked on several such as Cover your ass and Character actor which have multiple senses, and the Wikipedia entry reflects that, so I think it is handle-able. But overall I am not sure what direction is best here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to say congratulations on the research! You found some RS which support the validity of graphology which I was not aware of (I am a handwriting analyst - the "scientific" one). And yes, what you have described as the first sense is the same as the second sense. It is a system of handwriting analysis first developed by Hungarian psychologist and graphologist Klara Roman and Georg Staepfli for the Hungarian governent and further developed by Dan Anthony, a psychologist and graphologist who taught graphology in the New School for Social Research, New York. Various graphic variables (organization, simplification, rhythm, speed, trend, trizonal dynamics etc.) are evaluated and then plotted on the diagram. It helps a handwriting analyst to be objective while studying handwriting. Investimate (talk) 12:40, 28 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SUNY Oswego Men's Club Hockey Team

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

Article is about a non-notable recreational ice hockey club, not the collegiate level varsity ice hockey team Oswego State Lakers. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:52, 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 redirect to The Escapist (magazine). j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A World of Her PWN

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

An internet series that used to air on Escapist Magazine. Nothing of much notability about it and the only reliable sources comes from the episodes on the Escapist site. GamerPro64 00:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to The Escapist (magazine) - not seeing enough to pass any of the notability criteria. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to The Escapist (magazine) Fails WP:WEB, it didn't receive enough attention to get it's own article.--Church ^Talk 06:23, 28 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.