Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 December	14 December >

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 per WP:CSD#G3 (hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth case of Ebola virus in the United States

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

Not intrinsically notable. Maybe merge with Ebola virus cases in the United States? smileguy91^talk 22:21, 13 December 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 December 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax? The article's only reference is a link to the bed & breakfast in Monrovia. It doesn't mention anything about disease. I didn't find it reported elsewhere, either. Art LaPella (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. There were no arguments for deletion. Discussion of a possible merger with James Paterson can be initiated at the respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Paterson

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

A basic disambiguation page which should be merged/redirected into James Paterson. There is no need for separate dab pages for all first name variances, especially with this one - are you really going to have separate dabs for James, Jamie, Jim, Jimmy etc.? Serve no useful purpose, and actually hinders navigation if you don't know what name-variant the person you are looking for is known by on Wikipedia Giant Snowman 20:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 21:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 valid entries, none of which appear to be Jameses. Jamie is a name in its own right, and for a boy and a girl. All 3 entries meet criteria, and there are 2 valid see alsos, to James Paterson and also the similarly pronounced Jamie Patterson disambiguation. Boleyn (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James & Jamie are totally separate names, It's a valid disambig, with enough links. Some Jamie's may well get called James, but to bundle then together because they may happen is pretty pointless and in a lot of cases incorrect. See no harm in this at all. Blethering Scot 00:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Jamie [... is a] name derived as a pet form of James". It is not a valid disambiguation, it just causes more confusion. Giant Snowman 10:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot seriously say all Jamie's are actually called James. That's like saying all Mikes are actually Michaels, because it can be shortened to that. I know I hate that. Blethering Scot 10:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GiantSnowman, you missed off the end of that quote, which is: 'However, it has been used as an independent given name in English speaking countries for several generations. Though Jamie is originally exclusively male, it has also been used as a female given name since the 1990s, especially in Canada and the United States.' The Jamie name page lists several examples of women named Jamie and, like the three Jamies on the Jamie Paterson dab, male Jamies who appear to have Jamie as their names on their birth certificates. Boleyn (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GiantSnowman. These ever-increasing sub-dab pages do, indeed, hinder navigation and serve no useful purpose. The argument that some men are named Mike, Rob, or Willy, rather than Michael, Robert or William, or that some women are named Kathy, Cathie or Katty, rather than Katherine, Catherine or Kathryn, may be true, but that puts us in the untenable position of researching each entry to determine which form constitutes that individual's best-known name and then proceed to the reductio ad absurdum of segregating Billy Smiths who are William Smiths under the William Smith (disambiguation) page and Billy Smiths who are simply "Billy" under the Billy Smith (disambiguation) page (which, as of this writing, merges into the William Smith dab). As for the case at hand, a majority of the men listed under "Jamie" were, as might be expected, originally named "James" (Jamie Anderson (golfer), Jamie Allen (baseball), Jamie Bell, Jamie Carragher, Jamie Dimon, Jamie Dornan, Jamie Gillis, Jamie Hyneman, Jamie Kennedy, Jamie Langenbrunner, just to list the first ten among them). Although it is described as having become an "independent given name", the fact that it is a form of "James", analogous to "Jimmy" or "Jimmie", for many of those who bear the name, is the strongest argument for merging. Finally, where will all other variants (Jaime, Jay´mi, Jaimee, Jamee, Ja'mie, Jamey, Jaymie, Jayme, Jey´mi, Jeymi, Jeimy, Jeimi, or Jaymee) be appended? If there are notables bearing such names, will they be separated as "See also" on the Jamie Smith/Jamie Jones/Jamie Williams disambiguation page or will they be eligible for the James Smith/Jones/Williams dab? —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't put us in an untenable position at all when their real name is Jamie. As for someone called Jamie, who gets called James well that's a situation already dealt with by reliable sources.Blethering Scot 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are those whose real name is "Jim", "Jimmy" or "Jamie", the fact still stands that the primary form is "James" and all the other forms are offshoots of "James". James Stewart was always billed as "James", but was usually referenced as "Jimmy" and there are lengthy discussions on his talk page as to whether the main title header should be "James" or "Jimmy". The large majority of those who are referenced as "Jim", "Jimmy", "Jimmie" or "Jamie" are, in fact, officially named "James" and their biographical entries confirm this fact. In addition to the ten "Jamies", already listed above, who are really (or started out as) "Jameses" or are also known as "Jameses", here are twenty more: Jamie Allan Brown, Jamie Johnson (filmmaker), Jamie Johnston, Jamie Jones (footballer), Jamie McCrimmon, Jamie McGonnigal, Jamie McMurray, Jamie Madrox, Jamie Murphy (footballer, born 1973), Jamie Murphy (footballer, born 1989), Jamie O'Brien (footballer), Jamie O'Brien (surfer), Jamie Oliver, Jamie Oliver (musician), Jamie Smith (cartoonist), Jamie Smith (footballer, born 1974), Jamie Smith (footballer, born 1980), Jamie Spaniolo, Jamie Stone and Jamie Walker (baseball). There are various other split-offs and inconsistencies, such as Jamey Johnson being listed as a "See also" at the Jamie Johnson disambiguation page, but not even mentioned at the James Johnson page, and so on. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally irrelevant. The people listed here are Jamies, not Jameses, and there is a link to the James dab on this page, plus a link to the Jamie dab at the James page. You're also ignoring that Jamie is also a girl's name - certianly not short for James there! Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not irrelevant at all, if this has the potential of setting a precedent for all the other James/Jamie dab pages. Unless, of course, we plan on having similar discussions on the specific circumstances of each and every separate James/Jamie page, such as the analogous James/Jamie Patterson and, if there is a female Jamie among them, such an entry would be in the same position as other male/female names such as Dana, Laurie, Joyce or Beverly. Taking into account the thirty Jamies listed above who are Jameses (there are still others), are we going to let those stay with the Jameses on their respective dab pages? As for the matter of putting links to "Jamie" and "James" on their individual pages, such a procedure could be taken further, as GiantSnowman has already pointed out, to create separate dabs for "Jim", "Jimmy", "Jimmie", etc and then add links to all of them at the pages of all the others. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 10:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If there are multiple people named "Jamie Paterson", then there logically must be a disambiguation page to clarify the different Jamie Patersons. Otherwise, how would one be able distinguish between the different Jamie Patersons? If I am looking for someone named "Jamie", there's a good chance that I won't do a google search to find them by using a different, albeit similar name. I think User:GiantSnowman's main issue is the names of these articles, which he considers should be renamed to "James Paterson". Perhaps he should embark on a crusade to have all of those renamed first. Until then, it is reasonable for Wikipedia to have a disambiguation page for articles that have the same title.--Bogu Slav 02:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Boguslavmandzyuk: nope, I don't want to rename the articles at all - no idea where you got that from. I simply think having seperate disambiguation pages for 'Jamie' and 'James' hinders navigation, which is the opposite of what a disambiguation page should do! Giant Snowman 12:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Most of those entries seem to be about the footballers anyway. Sadfatandalone (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to James Paterson, perhaps to a subsection that has Jamies ("Jamie may be a name derived from James" or something like that) listed separately. Too many dab pages can get too confusing. — kikichugirl ^inquire 22:16, 11 December 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, L Faraone 22:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close, wrong forum. No one, not even the nominator, is favouring deletion. Even if the contents are merged, we would still want to have a redirect with this title. Let editorial judgement sort this out unhampered by AFD. Thincat (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steff Alexander

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

Non-notable actress, appears to have been in only one thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has been in multiple things, including TV shows, theatre musicals and music videos. Look what I have published on the Steff Alexander page and I have included references. She has not been in "only one thing". Iloveplanes2003 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than "castingcallpro" I've found nothing at all, Fails GNG ..... (If the nom or anyone can somehow find anything I'd be more than happy to change.) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK...delete - Fair enough. I agree.Iloveplanes2003 (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable (WP:NACTOR). Quis separabit? 20:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability theory of aging and longevity

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

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

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

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

Lots of OR and SYNTH, created by author of the "theory". No independent references (those that are not by Gavrilov were published even before this "theory" was formulated. No indicatiàon of meeting WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This theory is published in peer-reviewed articles and got over 300 scientific citations already, according to Google Scholar -- 173.61.107.132 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC) — 173.61.107.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mots of things get published in peer reviewed journals all the time and that doesn't necessarily make them notable. Are there any secondary sources (review articles, textbooks, or such) that discuss this "theory" in-depth (as opposed to in-passing citations)? --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Yes, please see the theory coverage by "The Scientist", 16(10): 20, May 13, 2002, for example -- 173.61.107.132 (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP seems to be talking about this article. This theory has also been discussed in the Wall Street Journal. Given that it is discussed in this book (page 23) as well, I vote keep. Everymorning talk 02:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was talking about this article. Thanks for your most interesting comments, additional links and your vote! -- 173.61.107.132 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publication in the Handbook of the Biology of Aging seems adequate evidence of notability. Secondary commentary appears in the Handbook of Gerontology. These are from respectable publishers and there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger into Senescence#Theories_of_aging. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very useful links, your suggestions and your vote! -- 173.61.107.132 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Arguments for keeping this article, suggested by Everymorning (talk) and Andrew D. (talk)

are quite convincing. This article exists for a long time (since 2006), providing important information to the public, and it is a result of successful cooperation of many contributors, participating in this project. -- 128.135.235.49 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — 128.135.235.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This theory, published in reputable peer-reviewed academic editions, received coverage in many independent secondary sources. Here are some examples:

Hope this helps. -- Biodemographer (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC) — Biodemographer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Old but well-sourced theory --I am One of Many (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sunshine

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

Promotional article on publicist. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, relies mainly on college/self-published articles totally insufficient for a BLP. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. Article appears to be primarily written for publicity purposes. BenLinus1214 (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am relatively bad at finding sources as i am new to Wikipedia, but from what i found below using Google News/Google Books is that he seems to be regarded as one of the best Hollywood public relations agents. He has a wide range of top celebrities as his clients and was even a Mayor of New York's chief of staff for 7 years (although i am Australian so i do not know how important that is). Also appointed to the "prestigious" Met's board of trustees by Mayor de Blasio according to what i found. I think there might be stuff to build an article out of here.

http://gawker.com/274443/ken-sunshine-would-never-have-paris-hilton

http://deadline.com/2013/06/sunshine-sachs-principals-ken-sunshine-shawn-sachs-start-production-shingle-for-film-tv-digital-531543/

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Who-is-Ken-Sunshine.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/01/27/meet-ken-sunshine-john-thains-spin-doctor/

http://pagesix.com/2014/09/13/ken-sunshine-joins-the-mets-board-of-trustees/

GuzzyG (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What a great name for a PR guy. I don't think it's publicity for the firm. He would probably prefer not having a Wikipedia article. But he's clearly at the top of his profession, and at least a couple of the sources are reliable. Surely others can be found. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 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 18:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He mainly gets mentions in articles about others, but there are some reasonable sources here - none as strong as would be ideal (e.g. no in-depth article about him), but he is probably notable. Maybe time will tell. LaMona (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Coral Springs Center for the Arts. MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Springs Museum of Art

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

Local museum with no evidence of notability, but prod removed on the absurd notion that "museums are notable", again without evidence. Created by the blocked sock of a disruptive user, but it's been edited too much to qualify for G5. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is one of four AFDs with commonality that they were created by one editor no longer active, were prodded by the deletion nominator, had prod removed by me, and have similarity in nomination statements (e.g. reference in one to "prod removed on the absurd notion that 'museums are notable', again without evidence", is referring to others in series). These are:

Requirements for wp:MULTIAFD may or may not be met. It is NOT wp:CANVASSING to note the commonality (neutral, not to talk pages, not selective, transparent). For efficiency, editors are invited to consider all four. --do ncr am 19:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. (modified from Keep) Many sources available, including "Ready to move on Coral Springs Museum of Art leader plans to retire in July"

by Marcus, Jonathan. South Florida Sun-Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale, Fla] 20 May 2012: p.1. That article is all about the museum and its longtime Executive Director. It mentions that "the nonprofit museum, which is affiliated with the city, has developed a niche in South Florida's art scene. The museum's first annual budget was approximately $121,000 while this year it is about $500,000." I get 377 hits on exact string "Coral Springs Museum of Art" in a national newspapers database behind paywall, many being reviews of new exhibits. --do ncr am 19:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying to Redirect based on Jllm06's pointing out that there is coverage of the topic at another article. There shoulda been a redirect set up long ago; it was reasonable for the AFD topic article creator to have created a separate article on the notable museum, in absence of knowledge that it was covered elsewhere (that shoulda been embodied by a redirect previously). That happens; duplicative articles get set up and have to be merged later. The topic is a Keeper, though. --do ncr am 21:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In this edit, editor User:Jllm06 redirected the AFD topic article to another article. I just reverted that, pending resolution of this AFD, per technical AFD policy described in the AFD notice at the article. Jllm06's edit is helpful in pointing out that, prior to the February 2014 creation of this article, there was pre-existing coverage of the museum topic at a different article. It seems reasonable for the AFD to be concluded with "Merge/redirect" or just "Redirect", as there was not substantially different content created at the AFD topic (newer) article. --do ncr am 21:42, 7 December 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 18:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Active art museum showing work of contemporary artists. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Coral Springs Center for the Arts already has a section with almost the same content. The museum should be handled as part of the center. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Parish Church

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

Local church with no evidence of notability, but prod removed because the only source (a blog) thinks that it's important. Created by the blocked sock of a disruptive user, but it's been edited too much to qualify for G5. Nyttend (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The church is named "Unitarian Church" on D.G. Beers' 1872 map of North Andover Map of North Andover, plate 55, so try also:

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

--do ncr am 20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (dupplicated at 4 AFDs). This is one of four AFDs with commonality that they were created by one editor no longer active, were prodded by the deletion nominator, had prod removed by me, and have similarity in nomination statements (e.g. reference in one to "prod removed on the absurd notion that 'museums are notable', again without evidence", is referring to others in series). These are:

Requirements for wp:MULTIAFD may or may not be met. It is NOT wp:CANVASSING to note the commonality (neutral, not to talk pages, not selective, transparent). For efficiency, editors are invited to consider all four. --do ncr am 19:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like other church articles, article is to be about both the congregation and its significant buildings. This congregation in North Andover, Massachusetts was founded in 1645 (!!! can't be much older in the U.S. as Puritans landed in 1620's...however it's the 37th Puritan church in America !!!!) and the current distinctive building, built in 1836 when the congregation changed from Puritan to Unitarian, is its 5th meetinghouse, per http://www.northparish.org/learn/about/history/ (history page at the church's website). I am confident there is significant coverage of the church as congregation and its buildings through history, though much of that will not be in online sources. Disambiguation vis-a-vis a same-named church in Stirling, Scotland may be needed if the Scottish one deserves an article too. --do ncr am 19:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I haven't researched it yet myself (and therefore am not tendering a vote), I'm concerned that Doncram is advocating keeping the article on the strength of his belief that sources exist. Unfortunately, that flies in the face of both WP:V and deletion policy. You cannot allege that sources might exist: you must demonstrate that they do. Ravenswing 02:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on basis of my amateur but long-running experience on historic U.S. church articles in Wikipedia, I do allege that sources will exist. :) But don't let's get bogged down then in my credentials, i don't want to assert to be an expert. Sure, I do freely grant that showing specific sources is better and more convincing. I'll try some more searching on "Unitarian Church North Andover" and other search terms. However, I fully believe the church's history web page that I linked above is reliable about basic facts, and that local historians and early American histories will have coverage. --do ncr am 20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, I defer to sources provided by Hirolovesswords below. Among other facts in the first source provided, the church's bell was cast by Paul Revere, and there's involvement in the Salem Witchcraft trials, and the church building is integral to North Andover's history in other ways. Then church was also named "First Church of Christ"(? or very similar?) and also named "First Unitarian Church".

I was beginning to follow leads on Bailey Loring, a Brown University graduate and 1810 minister of the church, likely father of U.S. representative George B. Loring. There will be numerous associations of the congregation and its members in U.S. history. For AFD purposes i think notability is clear so i stop now. --do ncr am 21:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not clear if a building being from 1836 in Mass makes it notable. In UK, there would need to be something more special about the church than it being 180 years old for it to be kept. I am therefore not voting one way or the other, but if kept it should be as North Parish Church (North Andover) or such like, as there must be other places with north and south churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A congregation from 1645 in Massachusetts makes it notable; a church building from 1836 in Massachusetts makes it notable, especially with its architectural distinction. In my opinion it would surely be eligible to be listed as a historic site, but in the U.S. many (perhaps most) churches choose not to accept historic site listing for their buildings. In the U.S. historic site listing is subject to owner approval, while I understand that in the U.K. listed building status is determined by the external authorities. The term "Cardboard Gothic architecture" itself is unusual; it may in fact fall within what is known in Wikipedia now as Carpenter Gothic architecture (if it wood-constructed and not masonry). There is some chance this is very unusual architecturally. --do ncr am 20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on article naming: Let's not get distracted by the naming of the article. I agree with Peterkingiron that "North Parish Church" is too generic, as there do exist other churches of that name, and no one is world-wide known. The AFD subject article surely should be renamed/moved to a more specific name, and it should be listed within disambiguation page North Church if there is not yet merit for a more specific disambiguation page at "North Parish Church". I just modified "North Church" dab to include mention of this church and set up North Parish Church (North Andover, Massachusetts) temporarily as a redirect to the article. After the AFD concludes it would be uncontroversial and appropriate to rename / move-over-redirect the article. I'd just move it now but don't want to confuse the AFD. --do ncr am 20:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Based on the following sources, I believe the subject of this article is notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merrimack Valley Magazine article on 2007 restoration project
Section on the Town of North Andover's website explaining the role of the church in the town's separation from Andover
2010 local newspaper article about the parish's works
1921 Christian Register article about the church's minister
Paragraph from Kwanzaa: Black Power and the Making of the African-American Holiday Tradition about the church's celebration of Kwanzaa
And Firm Thine Ancient Vow: The History Of North Parish Church of North Andover, 1645-1974 by Juliet Haines Mofford
An Inventory of the Records of the Particular (Congregational) Churches of Massachusetts Gathered 1620-1805 by Harold Field Worthley, which contains a section on the North Parish Church

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting my standards for historic churches. It (a) was designed by a notable architect, (b) the building is about 175 years old, remarkably old for the United States, and (c) has had a notable congregation, for over 350 years(!), and (d) is notable for its Kwanzaa celebration. Congregational churches don't have bishops, so those other factors don't apply. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 21:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chloé Burke

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE Harsh (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 December 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 18:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: WP:A7 Vrac (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The film isn't out yet, right? WP:TOOSOON. Also the "Burkesque" cite from the book was the wrong Burke. That was referring to Edmund Burke. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER (created by spa?). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Accra User Group

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

Seams like non-notable group. No reliable independent sources to establish the wp:notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Vrac (talk) 01:41, 10 December 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 18:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable organisation Gbawden (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Keurig. The strongest arguments against stand-alone retention are WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and, assuming the article was genericized in its current form, WP:UNDUE. I picked Keurig as the merge target because a box must be filled in, but that's obviously not set in stone and content is free to be merged elsewhere as anyone feels is appropriate, with the consensus at the various destination(s) determining how much of that content to integrate, if any. slakr^\ talk / 05:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of K-Cups

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

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Softlavender (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nominator. Nearly the entire article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; not to mention WP:UNDUE and unfair (and potentially libelous?) focus on a single brand/product/company. Softlavender (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote; the nomination is considered your delete !vote. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Keurig. The topic is notable, as per [1], [2], [3], [4], but a separate article isn't really necessary as per WP:SIZERULE. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, none of those sources are cited in the article. The entire article, with the exception of these sources ([5], [6], [7]), is completely WP:OR. None of the other sources even mention K-cups (except WSJ which is just a standard stock-market report and has no mention of anything environmental). All of the science stuff is off-topic OR and merely part of an undergraduate chemistry assignment, which this article is. Softlavender (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sources are used in the article to verify content (including the Plastics News one I linked above): [8], [9], [10]. The first two I have listed in this comment cover the topic rather specifically. I feel that a selective merge would best benefit the encyclopedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the three sources I mentioned and linked above (I did not recall, on checking the article, that one of the items you linked was the Plastics News -- this is the problem with student articles: they don't link sources). Anyway, to repeat, except for those three sources, the entire rest of article is completely WP:OR. None of the other sources even mention K-cups (except WSJ which is just a standard stock-market report and has no mention of anything environmental). All of the science stuff is off-topic OR and merely part of an undergraduate chemistry assignment, which this article is. Softlavender (talk)

FYI I understand what you're saying, and aspects of the article that pertain to all such plastics and don't refer to K-Cups themselves would be omitted from such a merge (as per my !vote); the merge would only encompass material that directly covers K-Cups per the sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided The question is whether this very narrow a topic is appropriate; if we think it is , there are enough sources. Topics like this case study may be suitable for term paper topics, but not for encyclopedia articles. One of the more difficult aspects of the education program is it can require extensive WP experience to select topics that will certainly be notable to avoid students working in good faith only to have their work rejected. Substantial good faith work did go into this article. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with possibly letting it stand as is is all of the WP:OR. All, repeat ALL, of the science is completely WP:OR -- none of the sources in the sections "K-Cup Degradation" (and all of its subsections) and "Microplastics in the Environment" even mention K-cups. It's bad enough when experienced Wikipedians or experienced professionals engage in OR on Wikipedia; it's even worse when we have undergraduates engaging in lengthy OR and making who knows how many unfounded and inaccurate claims. This is even above and beyond the fact that it's an WP:UNDUE and singled-out article on a single company/brand/product, which seems to be against all kinds of Wikipedia policies. Softlavender (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unusually for AFD we have a thoughtful deletion nomination for a thoughtful article. I'm hampered because I know hardly anything about these cups and am unfamiliar with the US terminology. Could the article be renamed as Environmental impact of polystyrene coffee capsules, or something like that? Maybe plastic rather than polystyrene. The text would need to be thoroughly copy-edited to suit with K-Cups becoming merely one example. I think the references may well support such a topic. Thincat (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've addressed two major issues: The article is titled and targeted at a single item/brand, yet the science (which purportedly, since it is a college assignment, is the meat of the article) is generic and non-focused and applies to numerous kinds of plastics and plastic items. I'm not a fan of education-program articles -- it's hard enough for editors who know what they are doing to create a decent and accurate substantive article -- and so far I've found that very few of them have the encyclopedic notability and scope (even beyond the issue of accuracy) that Wikipedia needs. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The article is the ultra-bland and glib homework assignment. user:Softlavender describes the problem convincingly - its a generic essay. The graphics all seem to be copied from some print source. IMHO, this kind of article is an abuse of Wikipedia as a parking place for homework. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's a homework assignment" is not a valid reason for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid topic. Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Valid" isn't a Wikipedia policy; notability however would be. "Cleanup" would have to entail removing all of the science: i.e. the sections "K-Cup Degradation" (and all of its subsections) and "Microplastics in the Environment", as none of the sources even mention K-cups. Softlavender (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In-depth explanation of how plastic decays or doesn't decay belongs in more general articles about that topic; likewise specifics about K-Cups can really be dealt with in a few sentences of the Keurig article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Cut the polymer photochemistry and merge the remainder with single-serve coffee container. --Kkmurray (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That at least would remedy some of the WP:UNDUE problem of the singling out of one company among dozens. Might even be able to keep some of the science alluded to if any of the citations mention single-serve coffee containers. Of course, this also all hinges on how accurate this homework assignment is. The problem still remains that all of the non-science text and sources are referring solely to K-cups, because for some reason this student decided to focus on one brand. All in all, we still have the problem of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (with a COI) - Given my link to the Ed Program it would be inappropriate for me to weigh in one way or the other, but if this is closed as a Merge, I would suggest that the sections on degradation of the various plastic components be merged into the relevant articles on those plastics, since this article includes details that are lacking from those articles. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's agreed by everyone here that the article as it stands is a problem and cannot stand as is, yet there is no precise consensus on what should be done about the myriad problems in the article and the myriad problems the article presents, one solution would be userfying the article. That way it would stand for whatever purposes the homework assignment purported. Every part of the article has problems though, in terms of Wikipedia mainspace: the WP:UNDUE singling out of one brand among dozens; the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of the science; the pasting of the science onto a specific item (single-serve coffee containers); the lack of expertise on the science (we don't even know if the science is correct even for the various plastics listed -- it would have to be vetted by a resident Wikipedia expert). While I'm on the subject, I'd like to repeat something I said on another AfD for these homework assignments, which was deleted when that AfD was deleted by request of the student who posted the now-deleted homework article: If Wikipedia is going to be a repository of homework assignments, we should immediately re-name it Homeworkpedia, and give up all pretenses of being, or even attempting to be, an encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 21:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bocchi (Japanese)

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

This belongs to the Wikidictionary, not to the encyclopedia. Basically, this article is about Japanese word for solitude. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree this is just a word description, but in any case it should at least be romanised correctly: it's botchi in Hepburn (and botti in Kunreishiki). The 'cchi' thing is just an artefact of the fact that no input method written in Japan accepts standard romanisation, for reasons which are not clear. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The explanation and discussion in the article is simply not a dictionary definition. The term ぼっち (I don't have a strong feeling about the Romanization) is a netslang term but it refers to a concept that is of broader sociological and cultural interest both in Japan and abroad. The text and the references in the article clearly establish notability as well as demonstrating that the concept is of broader cultural importance like (and in fact, related to) "hikikomori."

One challenge is that most of the references are Japanese. I just found and added an English language article about "botchi cool" in manga which looks like it's a republished translation of an article in Yomiuri Shimbun. Major newspapers don't normally write articles about a word. When they do, it's a sign that its the kind of thing that deserves an article. —mako ๛ 18:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a collection of original research cobbled together as an essay that rambles into discussions of "kodokushi". Not an encyclopedic article. --DAJF (talk) 02:04, 10 December 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 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an interesting insight into Japanese culture, and far more than a dictionry definition.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable concept which was object of both academic and more "mainstream" analysis and coverage. The article goes well-beyond a dictionary definition, and it is still expandable. Cavarrone 09:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you give us some references to this coverage? How do they refer to the "concept of Japanese solitude" (which is all that botchi means really)? The current article rambles around different Japanese terms, such as botchi-meshi, which really are not part of any coherent *topic*, but rather about usages of the word. If we include the section at the bottom on kodokushi, there really is no commonality at all except "being alone (in Japan)". Would that be a better title for the article? Imaginatorium (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage and notability are already in the article, notably in the section about "opinions by academics". All the rest (including keeping or removing the section about kodokushi, and I tend to agree it could go away) is a matter of cleanup, and does not imply deletion. About the title, I agree the article should be moved/renamed (very likely as Botchi as you suggested). Cavarrone 10:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Captain Sensible#Politics. czar ⨹ 22:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blah! Party

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

Barely meets any Wikipedia policy on notability, and as a political party, fails to have any significance or notability either 'in real life' or to satisfy Wiki policies. doktorb _words^deeds 09:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have to disagree on this one. The connection with Captain Sensible and all the sources in the article suggests it meets WP:GNG. Now to dig out some albums by The Damned. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Captain Sensible#Politics, where a lot of this content is already duplicated. Most of the coverage I found focuses on the Captain and unless it becomes more notable it can easily be accommodated there. --Michig (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Captain Sensible#Politics per rationale of Michig. The Party seems to be intrinsically connected to Captain Sensible, no clear indication of notability in its own right.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 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 18:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kwok

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

Unsourced article, no indications of notability Primefac (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no independent references and there's nothing to show he meets either the general notability guidelines or the specific notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NBIO; non-notable individual whose life story he or someone else wanted on Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 20:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Jimfbleak per WP:G11 and WP:G12. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chetan Verma ( Strawberry Boy )

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

Possibly unremarkable person, unsourced article smileguy91^talk 17:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, un-notable, autobiographical, BLP rubbish. Bazj (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as copyvio and promotion. I also can't really see where he's independently noteworthy of the team, so there's really no reason for him to have an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Outstanding candidate for speedy deletion. Not even plausibly notable. Msnicki (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -An WP:AUTOBIO written by SPA really is an outstanding candidate for speedy deletion. Not eligible for inclusion by any means. At this time, they fail each and every Wikipedias' notability guideline. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:AUTOBIO, fails WP:SPORTBIO, non-notable, unsourced, etcetc.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Permablocking the editor may become necessary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a G12 copyright violation. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin faucets

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

This entry does not meet WP:GNG. If anyone can find reliable sources it might be included at Bitcoin but I'm doubtful that there is anything significant out there. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The article is an unambiguous copyright violation of http://bitcoinsinireland.com/what-is-a-bitcoin-btc-faucet/. I have tagged the page for speedy deletion accordingly. Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Tiggelaar

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

Non-notable individual. ~~I believe the page to be autobiographical WP:AUTOBIO~~ Periglio (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I retract the autobiographical as it was not quite the right term to use. However, the way the article is written like a CV/Resume, plus an edit by an account that appears to be by the subject, makes me feel that the article is certainly breaks WP:NPOV Periglio (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of the article

The underlying issues of the AfD nomination are: (a) the article's being "autobiographical", and (b) Marco Tiggelaar's not being a notable person.

On being autobiographical

The subject of this article is Marco Tiggelaar; I am the writer of the article, but I am not Marco Tiggelaar. Therefore, the article is not autobiographical.

On being not notable

Let us review Wikipedia's definition of Notability:

For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.

The key phrase used by Wikipedia to define notability is "worthy of notice". "Worthy of notice", in turn is defined by any one of the following adjectival phrases:

significant enough to deserve attention or to be recorded
interesting enough to deserve attention or to be recorded
unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded

Marco Tiggelaar is neither famous nor popular, especially if measured using the standards of the entertainment and music industries or the number of followers/"likes" in the social network industry. However, since fame or popularity are not the primary considerations for notability, the following arguments focus on "worthy of notice".

The arguments presented here in favor of Marco Tiggelaar and the article about him are documented in the websites cited as references in the article.

Case #1 - Zen Load Balancer

December 2011 exchange of public messages in the forum
(http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.zenloadbalancer.user/month=20111201)

First point: The depth of Marco Tiggelaar's technical questions addressed to the original developers of Zen Load Balancer and his confident offer of assistance based on his knowledge of the Linux/Unix operating systems. – Openly and unconditionally offering to assist a major software developer based on his confident knowledge of Linux/Unix in spite of his being "not much into" development makes him significant.

Second point: The way he describes a Microsoft product: "I really want to replace the dumb Microsoft load balancer as you might understand lol :)" – The fact that he has the guts to call the product of the world's most popular software company "dumb" without mincing words makes him at least unusual, if not interesting, although he may not necessarily be considered significant in this particular instance.

Are his being unusual, interesting and significant in this case enough to deserve attention and to be recorded? Perhaps not necessarily, if only this single case is considered. There are three more cases following.

Case #2 - Key4ce osTicket Bridge

WordPress plugin page
(https://wordpress.org/plugins/key4ce-osticket-bridge/developers/)

Point: WordPress is currently the most popular content management system in the world. Part of its popularity is the availability of free themes and plugins from international contributors that help make designing websites painless. Marco Tiggelaar happens to be the author of a plugin called Key4ce osTicket Bridge which helps web developers using WordPress include a help desk system in their website projects. The plugin page of Key4ce osTicket Bridge in WordPress reports a star rating of 4.4 out of 5, and the recorded number of downloads of the plugin is 2,596. – For an individual like Marco Tiggelaar to have his work given prominence within the pages of a renowned site like WordPress, it is tantamount to WordPress unilaterally proclaiming his significance.

The download record may not have made him public sensation but it must have been interesting and significant from the point of view of 2,596 people who downloaded copies of the software into their computers; otherwise, they would simply have ignored it.

Aside from making him significant, his plugin contribution to WordPress also makes him interesting and unusual, especially after considering the fact that WordPress itself as well as the themes and plugins offered in its website are free to use by the world public.

Case #3 - WebsitePanel

Engagement with users in the support forums
(http://www.websitepanel.net/members/m-tiggelaar/)

First Point: WebsitePanel is described as a multi-tenant, Enterprise hosting automation tool with support for private cloud servers. It enables hosting businesses to centralize the management of their hosting infrastructure and share resources across multiple customer accounts. It is a product appreciated only by a few customers (because they are a rare class): those who provide hosting services to ISPs and other networked organizations. – Any person, including Marco Tiggelaar, who chooses to devote one's time for the benefit of this product without direct compensation is unusual enough to deserve attention and is therefore notable.

Second Point: The owner of WebsitePanel considers Marco Tiggelaar's technical credentials significant enough to warrant membership in its web community and responsibility in moderating three support forums, namely: General Discussions, Core Modules, and Enterprise Modules. – To take on these responsibilities, again without pay, certainly gives him points not only as far as being significant is concerned, but also being interesting and unusual.

Third Point: Marco Tiggelaar who casually talks about "IIS management", "FTP service", "NAT address", "firewall", "MySQL", "MSSQL", "auditlog", "eventlog", "Enterprise solution", "Hosting plan", "Mailbox plan", "127.0.0.1:9002", "Scheduler conf", "Global space", and "Autodiscover" in the WebsitePanel support forums. – Only an unusual individual churns out technical jargon like these on a daily basis.

Non-technical people may not perceive Marco Tiggelaar's being significant, but his technically savvy audience in the support forums apparently do because they look up to him for opinions or answers to technical questions.

Case #4 - VirtualPF

Developing and releasing a high-value product for free
(https://virtualpf.com/about/virtualpf/)

Point: VirtualPF is a firewall service or appliance running entirely within a virtualized environment, providing the usual packet filtering and monitoring that a physical firewall provides. It is forked from a predecessor product called pfSense with the intention to make it available for free to users. Marco Tiggelaar himself, with the help of two associates, worked on this product and it is now available to the whole world -- free of charge.

Does this make Marco Tiggelaar significant? Interesting? Unusual enough to deserve attention and to merit or to be recorded?

Network users throughout the whole world, unconditionally and without discrimination, stand to benefit from the added dimension of network security that they get from VirtualPF, courtesy of Marco Tiggelaar. He deserves gratitude, and this makes him significant enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. This alone is sufficient to meet the definition of "worthy of notice".

The 100% virtualization support that VirtualPF provides makes the job of administrators of complex network infrastructures worldwide easier. This makes him interesting enough to deserve attention or to be recorded; and this, too, by itself is sufficient to meet the definition of "worthy of notice".

Virtual PF is a complex piece of software, and Marco Tiggelaar put in much time and effort (a given in the world of software development) to bring it out to its intended beneficiaries without thought of financial gain. Considering that most people do this kind of work only if there's big money in it, this makes him unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Standing alone, this argument is also sufficient to meet the definition of "worthy of notice".

Conclusion

Since Marco Tiggelaar is worthy of notice, the article written about him passes Wikipedia's standard of notability. Therefore the AfD nomination under consideration lacks merit and must be withdrawn. Kaguchi (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I randomly came across the article working on Persondata. When I am not editing Wikipedia articles, I am an IT professional with years of experience. This is why the article hit me in the face as not saying much. To use a laymans terms, he does geeky things, but nothing that makes him different from any other IT professional. Everyone moans about Microsoft, lots of people contribute to open source software and contribute to IT forums, there is nothing better than discussing NAT addressing with my colleagues at work. The point is that he needs to have coverage outside his own activities to be notable. Periglio (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The point is that he needs to have coverage outside his own activities to be notable." – If coverage of a person's activities were a deciding factor for notability, Wikipedia would not have been silent about it. On the contrary, Wikipedia makes this quick reference right after defining "worthy of notice": "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. This strengthens my belief that an individual can become notable (or prominent, distinguished, remarkable) even if he/she spends a lifetime in a single sphere of activity as long as the said individual has done things that impact the lives of others one way or another while being there, specially when extraordinary self-sacrifice accompanies the deed. To arbitrarily add a qualification like "(he) needs to have coverage outside his own activities to be notable" not only overrides Wikipedia's simple definition of notability but also invites the idea of popularity to creep into the domain of notability, thus subtly promoting the secondary nature of popularity into primary. This action, if adopted as an ad hoc rule, introduces the danger of labeling something or someone "not notable" when the meaning that lies beneath the surface is actually "not popular". The subject of this article, to use the words in the foregoing comment, "does geeky things" indeed, but the one thing that sets him apart from most other IT professionals is his inclination to give — not once, but multiple times— the worldwide computing public the freedom to use high quality software without spending a cent. His peers in the IT profession would probably call it crazy, but notable nonetheless. Kaguchi (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the wall of text above, this is an article about a run of the mill IT professional with no independent reliable coverage. Fails WP:GNG by a mile. Madam Fatal (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, basically a run-of-the-mill IT guy. Way too soon to have an article. When he gets significant coverage in reliable sources, he can have an article. This is just a resume. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Clair Tiltman

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

Tragic but nothing not notable murder/crime. ...William 16:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The case is prominent in the UK and involves someone who is a serial attacker and parents who are prominent in local politics and covered-up for the murderer. Also her friends who campaigned for many years to keep the case in the public eye. Please also get the poor girls name correct - it is "Claire". David J Johnson (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.

Keep - seem to cover GNG and CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - case has had extensive media coverage over a long period of time. The potential for further charges relating to the alleged cover-up also mean this already notable case may become even more so. The fact that the murder victim was a child tends to also increase notability.Shakehandsman (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable murder with long-term coverage in the mainstream media. Jim Michael (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shakehandsman and Jim Michael. We have tended to keep articles involving well-known deaths that have ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebeca Linares

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

An undistinguished pornstar failing both WP:GNG and WP:PORNSTAR. Her only award was a scene-related one. She has made no unique contributions to porn, has never starred in any blockbusters, and is not in any Hall of Fame. She received some some minor, non-mainstream coverage in the Spanish media (A documentary called "Come to my Las Vegas, Baby" on Canal+) that is not widespread enough to fulfill the demands of WP:GNG. Redban (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Redban (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, plainly inaccurate rationale, the subject passes WP:PORNBIO per her Ninfa Award as Best Supporting Actress (which is clearly a non-scene-related award) and I don't see how a whole documentary about the subject broadcast on Canal+ should be considered "minor coverage" and "non-mainstream" (!). Subject also easily passes WP:GNG including coverage on mainstream sources such as El Mundo [11], 20 minutos [12], [13], RTVE [14], EITB [15], magazine Primera Línea (here a summary of the August 2006 issue) and more [16], [17]. Clearly NOT "an undistinguished pornstar". Cavarrone 17:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninfa Award is not "Well-known and significant." Hence, I disregarded it and believe she fails WP:PORNSTAR. If her only claim to notability is her Spanish sources, then why not leave her page on Spanish Wikipedia and delete her page here (if that is allowed)? I feel that's the better alternative, as those sources you've listed don't resonate with an English-speaking audience. Redban (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First there is no excuse for writing inaccurate, tendentious deletion rationales, and it is not the first time you do it. Second, based on which rule should we disregard Spanish sources? Are you kidding us? Cavarrone 17:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Linares passes WP:PORNBIO. The FICEB Ninfa Award for Best Supporting Actress is well known and significant. Please stop sending articles on notable porn actors to AfD. This is disruptive behavior. You have been warned about this several times already. Please stop wasting our time. For those users who don't know what's going on, Redban recently participated in an Afd for Audrey Bitoni, an article he wanted to be kept but was deleted. He declared during that discussion "Either this page remains or you remove 99% of the pornstar biographies on Wikipedia". Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above - Clearly passes PORNBIO - Someone ought to block Refdan as clearly he's nominating per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The hypocrisy here is pretty rank. There are editors with long histories of misrepresenting the terms of PORNBIO, disrupting AFD discussions by casting aspersions, and worse, and related misbehavior, but non of the editors who object here have made similar comments about editors who share their sympathies. Redban is a clumsy new editor, but virtually all of his nominations are plausible enough to survive speedy keeps, and his underlying claims are generally plausible -- as here, where the "Ninfa Prize" is a trade show award that wouldn't be treated as demonstrating notability in other fields. It's not inherently disruptive to hold minority views in AFD discussions -- if it were, Rebecca1990 would already be topic-banned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo, frankly I do not even care about the award in this case, even if saying in the deletion rationale "Her only award was a scene-related one" is obviously inaccurate and misleading. How a Canal+ biographical documentary enterely devoted to the subject could be marked as non-mainstream and minor coverage? And how a ridicolous response like this one is not offensive (especially for someone like me who created literally a couple thousand articles only based on Italian sources), and a complete joke? Rebecca1990 is dead right here, the facts (and Redban's own words) speak for themselves, Redban is only making fun of us/trolling and I am also dead certain you would agree if Redban would show the same attitude in another field. About hypocrisy, I am used to participate in AfDs related to every field, and, if requested, I can easily provide in your talk page bunches of links that show I have the same attitute towards disruptive nominators in any field (including opening discussions at WP:ANI against ponty AfDs, something I was extra-cautious to do in this case, at least until now). Cavarrone 19:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having given Redban enough rope to hang himself, it's become evident that this is a sock account of a porn enthusiast repeating the behavior of User:Dekkappai a while back, taking deliberately disruptive positions in order to discredit the "side" he objects to. (I wouldn't be all that surprised if they turn out to be that user, but the old ID is too stale to trace.) Given some of the absurd and disruptive behavior that's arisen in response, it should be evident that this has become a situation where trolling and disruption is being rewarded. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk)`

Keep - Linares is a Spanish actress, and the FICEB Awards are "well-known" within Spain & a "Best Supporting Actress" award is a "significant industry award" in just about any industry outside of adult films. So-called "trade show awards" are also not at all unique to the adult film industry.

This is yet another disruptive & pointy AfD by a relatively new Wikipedia user. Guy1890 (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The FICEB Nifna award for Best Supporting Actress is sufficiently well-known and significant to satisfy PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK #1: Withdrawn nomination w/ all "keep" votes – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marisara Pont Marchese

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

100% of the article is unsourced material about a living person. Complying with WP:BLP essentially requires blanking the page, until someone takes enough of an interest to author a sourced article. CorporateM (Talk) 15:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added various sources to the article. The subject of this biographical article is notable, not only because she served as the 20th Secretary of State of Puerto Rico, but because of her additional notability in being the only one whose recess appointment ended abruptly when the House of Representatives denied her confirmation, after the Senate had extended its consent. Pr4ever (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I agree with User:Pr4ever that the subject is notable. I can understand the nominator's concern, but since User:Pr4ever has taken upon him/her-self the task of providing reliable verifiable sources then. the nominator (in my opinion) should un-list the article/stub from being deleted. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very well known politician in Puerto Rico. Evenmoreso her lack of confirmation from a PNP-controlled House. Here are some references about her: WKAQ 580AM, KQ105 FM, El Nuevo Día, and Primera Hora. WP:NPOL applies here easily. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pr4ever/Ahnoneemoos. No longer a BLP problem and subject appears to satisfy WP:BIO et al. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article as it is now shows no BLP issues as far as I can tell. It seems to me that every Secretary of State of Puerto Rico would be automatically notable. I understand from above comments that the article has been improved since AFD nomination. --do ncr am 03:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that BLP is no longer an issue, though I wish we had more secondary sources, rather than primary ones. Can someone close this one out? Pretty obvious snowball Keep. CorporateM (Talk) 13:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. If someone independent of the subject is interested enough in him to write an independent article, we can judge the notability of that once it happens, but there doesn't seem to be any point in holding a full discussion over an article that's essentially just a straight copy of a web site. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Covello

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

Tagged for notability for two years. A few quick searches reveal only brief mentions and nothing where Mr. Covello is the subject of a substantial work. CorporateM (Talk) 15:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This had been tagged for proposed deletion, which I had objected against primarily based on his fairly high citation numbers (about 5000, h-index of 31, according to GScholar). A second look reveals, however, that most of the article's text is a copy from here. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Axolotl Nr.733 Should we still let the AfD discussion roll even if it's copyvio? I know generally speaking copyright infringements are seen as an immediate priority and I am not willing to rewrite the content every time someone copy/pastes their bio into Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 15:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM I'd have no problem with clarifying the copyvio issue first. Even though I'm confident that the academic literature on risk communication would provide enough information on his contributions to this field, I agree to your general statement on copy/pasted bios. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize. I tagged for CSD before reading these comments fully. I'm fine if we want to remove the tag to address the copyvio. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput clans of Ambala Division

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

Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg:

As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Rajput in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Rajput or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Rajput." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same. Sitush (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination Mark Marathon (talk) 08:56, 5 December 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, Sam Walton (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death, Dungeons and Taxes Party

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

Not notable party, against GNG and other policies. Not a political party with any achievements of note, and with no lasting cultural significance. doktorb _words^deeds 09:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 09:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a political party which fielded candidates for office per WP:IAR — Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Media coverage is admittedly sparse, but the party is (or least was) a verifiably existing one, and has actually fielded candidates in a significant election and thus is marginally notable.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 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 09:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satirical political parties can still be notable. The article is admittedly small, but can be improved with a little research.--TMD Talk Page. 15:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Today (U.S. TV program). If anyone wants to merge what little substantial content there is, they're free to do so. Mr.Z-man 21:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the World Is Matt Lauer?

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

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

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

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

Little references and most of the article is one section (Matt's Travel Locations). Little evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, it's just a segment on the Today show. StewdioMACK (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it!! just because you don't like it dose not meen you can delete it Jena (talk) 14:57, 6 December 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 09:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A good, quick reference for people who are into the Today Show.--TMD Talk Page. 15:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the issue isn't whether or not the page would be useful or if someone didn't like it (WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT), but whether or not the section has received enough focus to where it'd really merit an article outside of the main one for the Today Show. You have to show coverage that is independent of Today or anyone else involved with the segment, which is often extremely difficult for any television show- even Saturday Night Live and Mad TV has difficulty in proving notability for repeat sketch characters, and some of these are immediately recognizable sketches that are infamous but haven't received coverage in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Today_(U.S._TV_program). The problem here is that while the Today show is notable and I've heard of this segment, there just isn't any coverage for this segment to show that it's individually notable of the show or of Lauer... and that's what we need for it to merit its own article. I do think that there is merit in having a section about the various segments that the show has had, but I don't see where this passes GNG to where it'd need its own article. A few sentences are enough to give the gist of the segment- everything else would be seen as fairly WP:INDISCRIMINATE as far as the overall gist of the segment goes, as there's no real reason to list everywhere that Lauer went. In this instance this would be better off on a fan wikia than Wikipedia. This just isn't what Wikipedia is for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Today_(U.S._TV_program) or Delete. I agree with the reasoning of Tokyogirl79, but I don't think that a redirect is entirely appropriate. Care must be taken on the merger not to give undue weight to this new, and ephemeral, segment. --Bejnar (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shyla Stylez

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

An uncelebrated pornstar, she fails WP:PORNSTAR with the absence of any major / substantial industry awards and no widespread coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. She has a Hall of Fame induction for "Urban X," but this achievement is not "equivalent" to the AVN or XRCO Hall of Fame, as required by WP:PORNSTAR (3). The Urban X Hall of Fame is new, and it lacks obvious Hall of Famers (ie - Serenity, Mark Davis, Jenna Jameson), which makes me consider it insignificant. Urban X gives its awards through fan-voting, so their Hall of Fame criteria is likely flimsy. Redban (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Redban (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - win, so meets the requirements. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did she win? Redban (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stylez was inducted into the Urban X Hall of Fame and therefore passes WP:PORNBIO criteria #3 which states "is a member of an industry Hall of Fame". Asking us to disregard her Hall of Fame induction just because Jenna Jameson isn't a member as well is preposterous. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Hall of Fame's are created equal. Criteria #3 says, "is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent" (Emphasis added]. Is Urban X Hall of Fame equivalent to AVN and XRCO's Hall of Fame in terms of popularity, recognition, credibility? Redban (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Urban X Hall of Fame is not an industry hall of fame, or equivalent to one. It was part of the Urban X awards, a short-lived for-profit awards ceremony run by one Giana Taylor, a minor porn director, married to Alexander DeVoe, a more active porn director/performer. DeVoe has won a staggering 36 awards from his wife's coatrack-event, another dozen or so have gone to his producing partner, one Brian Pumper; and, overall, the majority of these awards have gone to performers associated with Taylor and her husband. For example, in the years running up to this ersatz recognition, Sheila Stylez made about 20 releases for Jules Jordan Productions, a porn producer which partnered with Alexander Devoe. The Urban X awards and hall of fame have repeatedly been found to fail the PORNBIO standards. See

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten (pornographic actress)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Jolie
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devlin Weed
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_24#Carmen Hayes
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cherokee_D'Ass_(3rd_nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kaiya_Lynn
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Victory (2nd nomination)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirra Lynne

I know of no discussions resulting in a keep (under the current "well-known and significant" standard, which by consensus was made more restrictive than mere notability). If Scott Boras were to create a "hall of fame" for collegiate baseball players, and most of the members turned out to be young players he represented, there would be little argument that the "award" didn't demonstrate notability. One person's actions don't create an "industry award"; one person giving trophies out that primarily promote her husband's business interests is clearly not significant. Note that the only sources related to to this award, both in this article and the award article, are Urban X's own announcements. Clear GNG failure, no other plausible claim to notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was incorrectly categorized in "places and transportation articles for deletion". I've moved it to "biography ...." No opinion on the substantive question. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HW's excell;ent analysis of this award. As a BLP much better sourcing then this is required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's very detailed analysis. Finnegas (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tory Lane

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

Uncelebrated pornstar who fails WP:Pornbio, as the rules clearly exempt awards for scenes. She also has not starred in any blockblusters or made any unique contributions to porn. She has no substantial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Redban (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Redban (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to keep an article like this.--TMD Talk Page. 15:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained vote that must have minimal worth in this Afd.Redban (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TMD's vote seems to be the same. Let's leave double standards behind. --Λeternus ^(talk) 22:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and I'm not logging in with my user name because of this topic, but using an IP should not detract from my one !vote here. She's notable enough that I've heard of her and I seriously haven't watched porn in over 10 years (yes, truly). I actually did come to this article because I had heard a rumor of what college she went to and was curious if it really was true. If I came here for a non-porn reason, I'm sure others have as well. The only delete I see is "I don't like it" and that covers no weight at all, even less than "encyclopedic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.208.225 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 19 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only minor or scene-related award wins. Falls short of WP:GNG without non-trivial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Porn industry press mainly consists of announcements and warmed over press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k's accurate analysis. Just a promotional BLP without reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a BLP but falls far short of the necessary standard of sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 21:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minttu

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

This topic about a liqueur does not meet WP:GNG. Several source searches are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources. Prod was declined and the deprodder added a primary source, but this does not establish notability. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it were notable, removing the unsourced content would result in a blank page. CorporateM (Talk) 12:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources; notability not demonstrated. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 21:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russia–San Marino relations

AfDs for this article:

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

Many binary international relations are notable, but this is a mere notice of the establishment of relations between an micro-nation and a major country with whom it has no substantial connection. Neither has a resident ambassador or even consulate with the other, DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion. To keep the article it would need things like: substantial trade relationship, important migratory movements from one country to the other, wars, political clashes that influenced substantially their relationship, etc.

I google translated the 10th anniversary celebration of the establishment of relationships and it only contains fluffy filler. An honorary consulate is not a professional diplomat [18] and it's not proof of solid relationships.

Another problem. San Marino exists since 300, and has official existence since 1600. And it didn't any relationship with Russia until 1993?? It looks like Russia and San Marino never had any meaningful interaction. Too far away from each other, and San Marino was too small. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing notable about this bilateral relationship, certainly nothing to suggest this relationships has received coverage in enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is nothing and no coverage of this relationship except diplomatic recognition. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as the article was created by a sockpuppet of User:Holy Child Student and hasn't received significant contributions from other editors. @DGG: @LibStar: this person keeps coming back, so could you please let me know if you see similar articles? They don't seem to understand that it takes me seconds to delete what must be taking them quite a while to add... Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines–San Marino relations

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

Many binary international relations are notable, but this is a mere notice of the establishment of relations between an micro-nation and a country on the other side of the world. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete all there is to these relations is recognition, I doubt if any of their leaders have actually met. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtful Media Group

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) not much depth in secondary sources - there's several PR and primary sources. May just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. (created by COI / paid editor WP:COIN#Bert_Martinez_(2) ) Widefox; talk 02:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's sources, yes, but upon closer inspection do they fall short of WP:CORP? Some fail WP:CORPDEPTH e.g. Advertising Age: employee moving (and as an Advertising Age employee that's a primary source), Unilever PR: mentions of partnerships) . (nom clarified per feedback, see comment below) Widefox; talk 11:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think the nominator has made a sufficient argument for deleting this article. Among the sources used in the article are:

a feature on the subject in Bloomberg BusinessWeek;
a business article on the subject in Xconomy;
an article on the subject in Advertising Age;
an article in The Guardian;
an article on the subject at Yahoo Finance;
an article in PR Week; and
an article in Marketing Week. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian source has no mention of TMG so doesn't count for notability (no depth at all). (That sentence also borders on WP:SYN and should be split into 2 sentences or the source removed as I've already done for clarity.)

Comment The nom has already covered the weaknesses in the sourcing, see Talk:Thoughtful Media Group#Review;_AfD_needed,_not PROD :

"Primary sources: 3. Advertising Age, 6. & 7. Thoughtful Media Group. 4. may or may not be an RS blog. There's currently no depth." per WP:CORPDEPTH
- e.g. 3. Advertising Age - it is written about an Advertising Age employee, primary, non-independent and doesn't count per CORPDEPTH ("routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel")
- 6 & 7 (are the same url, now combined) primary, 7. fails verification

(nom clarified per feedback) Widefox; talk 11:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The remarks by Ssilvers are a bit misleading. The Bloomberg "feature" looks like user-generated content. The "article" in Xconomy looks like a brief press release. The Guardian article does not even mention the subject of the article. The Yahoo "article" is an obvious press release. The PR Week article only briefly mentions the subject. Etc. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This boutique ad agency may be notable some day, but it's not there yet. Press references are tiny mentions or PR-generated. WP:NOTYET applies. John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 2 December 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, Michig (talk) 06:14, 6 December 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, Michig (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Contrary to claims above: There is no "feature" in Bloomberg, just a listing; Xconomy is a routine announcement, not independent coverage; Advertising Age is a routine announcement, AdAge talking about one of their own, not independent; the article in The Guardian makes no mention of Thoughtful Media Group; the "article on the subject at Yahoo Finance" is a press release; PR Week is a trivial mention. This is an advert created by a shill. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Incidental coverage does not make it, see WP:CORPDEPTH. --Bejnar (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emails Angel

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

insufficient evidence of notability. Almost all sources are published by the company or press releases DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources on the company. Just a bunch of user reviews, but no official tech reviews or anything. Silver seren^C 07:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article whose references consist of primary links and a review link where this firm is not currently included; nor are multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) identifying anything better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -It simply fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We, Wikipedians, Can find references, We can improve this page: My research shows that company exists and has good reputation in the market. Of course, there are no secondary reliable resources but still references can be found and established its notability. We need to take into account that there are many wikipedia pages which have got no references but still they exist. This page ===Emails Angel=== is similar in presentation to those of other pages on email marketing service providers like ===MailChimp=== ===Aweber===. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.163.246 (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@49.204.163.246: We tried and unfortunately did not find any. If you've got some, please present them here and save the article from deletion. See also, WP:OSE. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete & redirect to Sissel Kyrkjebø discography. czar ⨹ 21:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fire In Your Heart (album)

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

Looks like a random collection of songs. Although the songs may be notable, the collection probably isn't. All references are {{bsr}} and it is unclear how the sources have been used for compiling the article. Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is a reliable source out there discussing this album, I couldn't find it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:17, 2 December 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 00:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sissel Kyrkjebø or Sissel Kyrkjebø discography. The album may not be notable, but it'd be useful as a redirect. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Links to Amazon and other similar sites do not constitute the level of coverage necessary to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Note that this close does not preclude a potential merge of the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian electoral code referendum

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

Short article on a proposed referendum that never happened. Article ends with speculation that it may happen in future, but this is WP:CRYSTAL and the article can easily be restored if it is given the go ahead. Current content (the issue was about changing the electoral system) could easily be covered in Elections in Bulgaria or National Assembly (Bulgaria) in one or two sentences. Number 5 7 13:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Elections in Bulgaria - no need for a stand-alone article. If this goes ahead later, it can always be split out again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FORDISC

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

Based on results of recent AfD nominations of articles on my watchlist, I am renominating this article for deletion on the rationale of WP:PROMO. Article was created by WP:SPA editor who may have a commercial (or academic) conflict of interest in relation to the edits in the article edit history. I read sources on this topic extensively, and the product is not described in such approving terms as in the article by anyone but its developers in the professional literature.[19] [20] WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started looking for sources for this via Highbeam, which returned quite a few. Apart from those now referenced in the article, others were pointing towards the critical literature, which is also indicated in more detail in the two Google Books links provided by the nominator. In sum, though, these are indicative of notability; it strikes me that the main concern expressed in the nomination is a lack of balance in the present text? In that case, the need is for either a competently-written and referenced Criticism section to be added to the article, or perhaps a less vendor-specific merge into Forensic_anthropology#Application? AllyD (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the helpful comment: I haven't seen enough discussion of this software in actual print books I have at hand to get the sense that it fits well as a standalone article, but the merger suggestion and looking at the sources viewable online should help produce a balanced, encyclopedic treatment of the topic. The previous editing history of the article involved striking out a lot of material that provided better balance by the article creator, but a merger into the other article would put other eyes on the topic and help ensure balance. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The software is important in its field--appears to be the standard--and its performance matters and is subject to critique. It is the standard and its statistical methods and its included database are important. Clearly best covered in a separate article, not merged somewhere else. My impression is that this is the far-and-away main software; there are not competitors to discuss in a joint discussion; it is simply clearer to discuss this software and its properties. It's not directly relevant, but I also cannot imagine that anyone is profiting by the software, as it is very specialized. The operating manual of the software itself describes dangers in its usage, from possibility of over-classification. Reliable sources are abundant. Simply this one suffices on its own to clearly establish notability: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/6/849 (note it cites numerous studies using FORDISC. This Wikipedia article is an excellent resource potentially to describe the main software in the field in more detail, and its limitations. An article on this is perfect usage of Wikipedia, is what Wikipedia was invented for! In terms of further development of the article, posting requests to WikiProject Statistics (is there one) or otherwise soliciting statisticians is the way to go. --do ncr am 01:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — Per the nominator's own links, the topic seems notable, widely used, and deserves an article. There are important NPOV issues with this article that likely stem from COI editing. Most problematically, Sustentacular (who created this article and has very limited editing beyond it, a few others on the topic, and one of the software's author's university) has removed critical information in the past (e.g., [21] although I can't evaluate these particular claims, this always makes me itchy). My strong preference is always to fix an article on rather than delete and that's my preference here too. If consistent massaging by editors with likely conflicts makes this article unfixable I will happily reevaluate my !vote. —mako ๛ 15:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar ⨹ 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1DayLater

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

Nominating for DELETION as fails NOTABILITY. There does seem to have been some local notability as the references come from periodicals/newspapers local to the north-east of England and the software did make no. 86 on a list of free software in PC mag but there are no references to be found on Google Books or Scholar. The external software page does not exist anymore. The firm seems never to have been more than a 2-person firm. In fairness to the article, it's not that spammy compared with some of the other stuff out there, but I don't believe it merits a page. U2fanboi (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The firm seems to be defunct. The official website is dead, and the last Tweet was in 2012. There was a Tumblr blog but it only had 4 pages and the year was unclear. The cites are 4 years old. At that time it would have been notable, but not now. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTTEMP then. Margin1522, your comment misunderstands policy. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 You mean it would be OK if it were rewritten in the past tense? I would be OK with that. But as it stands it risks sending readers on a wild goose chase. I tried to find out how to sign up, but it seems to have fallen off the map. Of course my search may have been incomplete, but I couldn't even find any information about when it was closed down, if it has been. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the company existed (past tense) then it should be written about in that manner. Hitler died; he's no longer around but he's still notable. Enron collapsed, its no longer around but it's still notable. Just because the company stopped trading or their products stopped working, doesn't mean they are no longer notable. Once notable, always notable. There's been a rash of these non-policy nominations and they should be speedy-keep-closed and strongly discouraged. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I had the information I would happy to update the article myself. For example, I did that recently with JANJAN, a defunct online newspaper. But in that case it was possible to determine what happened to it. In this case, it looks like it simply stopped. No announcement on their Twitter or Tumblr, nothing. So anything we write about it now would be speculation. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So just like any other topic, we write about those things we can write about. You can say, "as of 2014, the 1DayLater website is no longer available" or something like that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found the closing announcement on the Wayback Machine and updated the article. Changing my !vote to Keep. I guess it does no harm to keep it for historical purposes. I do feel that they could have had the courtesy to leave a live page on the web for a couple of years, or at least leave an announcement on their Facebook page. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article's not perfect but that can be fixed, Google also brings up alot of stuff so see no real reason to delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar ⨹ 21:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game of "S.K.A.T.E."

AfDs for this article:

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

I can find no coverage of this skateboarding game and no indication the subject meets the General notability guideline. The sources cited in the article are a blog and an online skateboarding dictionary. This article appears to be the only relevant Ghit. Even the basketball game H-O-R-S-E, on which this game appears to be modelled, has only a section dedicated to it in the article Variations of basketball; based on the lack of coverage, I don't think this subject merits a standalone article. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Game of S.K.A.T.E. has been a generally informal affair, occasionally played in the context of other larger competitions as an additional event. But this year the inaugural EPSN and Monster Energy Drink-sponsored international Game of S.K.A.T.E. was held ([22]). That has prompted other organisations to run their own events, including governments. A year ago I might have agreed, but this is now an activity with organised competitions at the highest levels, in addition to ongoing popularity as an activity among casual participants. There's ancillary coverage of other events and related stories like this and this (related). As a game or event, S.K.A.T.E. is also (and has been for some time) included in a range of other events where it is secondary to vert skating or freestyle events. There are multiple instances of in-depth coverage of the August 2014 event, such that it might almost qualify for its own article. But I'd rather see this kept with mention of that than the other way around. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:46, 2 December 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 21:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably would have kept under WP:NTEMP from the previous two AfD's even without Stalwart's sources. Here's another in-depth X-games article on the house. Deadbeef 15:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have undergone electroconvulsive therapy

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

Listcruft. Per WP:LISTN has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Per WP:STAND has no lead; and indeed no sources that are used to show NOTABILITY of group. each person in list has their own source with none repeated Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find a source that indicates that the list is notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It only takes a moment to find a source which lists famous cases as a group, e.g. USA Today. More substantial works such as Shock Therapy: A History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness naturally list famous patients such as Ernest Hemingway and Sylvia Plath. Andrew D. (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ECT as a medical treatment has been performed for many years, and a list of patient outcomes from the procedure is a good thing to have for science. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A small series of anecdotes (with many self-reports) tells us nothing scientific. Horrible. On top of that, Mark v1.0 has added pretty much only people who believe that ECT damaged them. This article is looking more like the subject of WP:ADVOCACY and in any case, very prone to be abused in that way, per WP:COATRACK. All the more reason to delete. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog noted that I only added negative reviews of ECT to the positive reviews. I wrote of what I know of, sorry about that.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog started this request for deletion when people who did not have good outcomes from ECT were added and today continues to edit the article in favor of his point of view by removing the description "psychiatric survivor" and "elecroshock survivor".https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_who_have_undergone_electroconvulsive_therapy&diff=637908569&oldid=637906735 --Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above discussion is mostly irrelevant as to whether this list should be kept. Bear in mind that ECT narratives have almost always served a polemical purpose for or against the procedure. The list is likely to reflect this and that most such narratives, at least until about the mid-1990s, were anti-ECT; but this fact could be contextualised for readers in a properly constructed lead paragraph. The list should not be presented in such a way as to reflect on the efficacy of ECT, however. That is more properly discussed in the main article for that subject. You're dealing primarily with the role of pathographies in the public debate about ECT. As to the inclusion of terms such as 'psychiatric survivor', this should be determined principally by how reliable sources describe these individuals. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm somewhat torn because I may be somewhat out of the mainstream in my belief that MOST list articles should be deprecated in favor of categories. I would say that the contents of this list should be converted to Category:People who have undergone electroconvulsive therapy, and to the extent that famous patients are discussed in books such as Shock Therapy mentioned by Andrew Davidson above, that can be incorporated as prose into the main article Electroconvulsive therapy (e.g. Electroconvulsive_therapy#Historical_accounts). 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 19:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The category that you suggest doesn't exist and deleting this page won't make that happen - a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. In any case, it is explicit policy that we don't delete lists to favour categories (or vice versa). They both have their points and, where the matter is somewhat controversial, lists are superior because it's feasible to back up the entries with citations. Andrew D. (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. It is not uncommon in deletion discussions to suggest that action such as a merge or redirect be taken. The page you link even specifies that in some CfD discussion the result is to create a list article rather than have a category. What I'm saying is that the only disadvantage of going to a category that I see is the lack of provision for references (which can be handled by including references on the subject's page directly), and I don't see this list as being particularly nor do I see the group as being particularly notable. Either way, it's only a weak delete vote, and I've given the caveat that I'm much more likely to vote delete in a list discussion anyway. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 19:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm missing your point. Someone could do all this work of deletion and then creating categories and adding citations to recreate the list in another format. But what would have been achieved by this activity? Wouldn't we just be back where we started? What would be the point of this? Andrew D. (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just for context, I created this page on 8 March 2011 from content that was then part of the Electroconvulsive therapy article - diff here. The main ECT article was overlong and lists such as these, like many in popular culture article-sections, can at times grow to excessive lengths. If this list were to be deleted, I think it quite likely that many editors would argue for the inclusion of its content, in whole or in part, into the main ECT article. As to why it should be kept, the narratives of many of the individuals listed are discussed in sources that treat of the cultural history of ECT. Andrew Davidson has already cited perhaps the most significant recent study above, Shock Therapy: A History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness (quite a polemical work which argues strongly for the benefits of ECT, not that that is highly relevent here) and one could also add Hirshbein, L.; Sarvananda, S. (2008). "History, power, and electricity: American popular magazine accounts of electroconvulsive therapy, 1940–2005". Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 44: 1. doi:10.1002/jhbs.20283. (a very nice and balanced US study, the full text of which is readily available through a google search), amongst several others. The article obviously should have a contextualising lead paragraph that indicates the significance of these narratives in the public debate over the use of ECT. It is a misnomer to argue for the inclusion or deletion of the list based upon its supposed scientific content. It really doesn't have any. The list is mostly of significance in terms of the history of the public debate about ECT and the way such personal narratives have been used to delegitimise or, more rarely, legitimise this particular therapy. Most of the list will be comprised of people who criticise the treatment and that, I think, accurately reflects much of the public debate on ECT, at least until recent times. Incidentally, one omission from the list of a proponent of ECT is the psychologist Martha Manning. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD F9 as unambiguous copyright infringement. No source is provided for the file, and it appears to have been copied from somewhere. As such, the licensing information on the file page under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License is incorrect, in which the uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder of this work of the image, which is virtually certain to be false. Furthermore, the written content of the page was in an incorrect namespace, is mostly duplicated at User:BHUMIJ LANGUAGE/sandbox, and an article already exists at Bhumij. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo of Bhumij Language logo.jpeg

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

Article created in file namespace which is likely not to meet notability standards. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's actually taking me a while to figure out what they were trying to do with this page. It looks like it started off as an upload but then turned into them trying to make it into a full article. ([23]) It's so overly borked up that I'm tempted to vote to TNT it and have them start afresh. I'm not sure if this belongs at MfD or here, to be honest. I am concerned that there are two different accounts with similar names editing the page, though. I'm not sure if it's sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:14, 5 December 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 04:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific International

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

Effectively unsourced promo article, crystal bol, doubtful notability The Banner talk 13:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 6 December 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 04:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ion Bazac. czar ⨹ 21:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forza Rossa Racing

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Forza Rossa Racing

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

The article relates to a proposed Formula One team that was planned for the 2015 Formula One season. However, the entry list for the 2015 season has been published without mention of the team, and the question of whether or not the team ever existed beyond paper cannot be verified. Although there are articles for teams that never existed, such as USF1 Team, in this case there is no physical evidence that Forza Rossa existed at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with page for owner, Ion Bazac. --Falcadore (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete with Ion Bazac. Fails WP:GNG for a standalone article. Tvx1 (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with owner page for now. Team appears to be in a state of limbo, and their financial woes were all the articles I could find talked about. However, once a decision is made regarding the fate of the team, we should revisit, and decide whether it can stand alone, or be deleted. Imitch5 (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question the page of the owner does not exist. Should this page just be moved to the owner page hand have the owner's page created that way? Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article for the owner: Ion Bazac. DH85868993 (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I included a link in my original post. --Falcadore (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Milk Queen. czar ⨹ 21:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Dairy Princess

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

Unremarkable beauty pageant Gbawden (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. Agree. Of minimal local interest only and does not seem to have a place in the encyclopedia. BenLinus1214 (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (changing to Redirect, see below) No significant coverage found for this pageant. I earlier prodded it; author removed the prod but the notability problem remains. MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - not a major contest, even in Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast Thing is, this is a thing, a contest that has been around since before you and I were born. It's even older than Wikipedia. (irony, that was ironic, although I do see a AfDs arguing that a thing (corporation, building) "no longer exists" and therefore the article should be deleted. This contest happens every year, involves real human beings, gets real coverage. I suspect that it used to get covered in bigger papers back in the day. I'm going to try and source this one, before I vote.ShulMaven (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Milk Queen, without prejudice in the event that someone wants to spend the time sourcing this. There are indeed old news articles from back in the day, and I found use of the term in novels, non-fiction and essays as a kind of placeholder for a certain kind of authentic, rural America. A solid, reliably sourced article could be written, but until/unless it is, WP readers are better served by a redirect to Milk Queen. And now let's get serious, Would you like Maple Walnut or Rocky Road? ShulMaven (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Redirect per User:ShulMaven. Good work locating a redirect target! --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can go along with a redirect or merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. czar ⨹ 20:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Business Plan

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

I can't find references that show this to be notable in any way. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG (and WP:INDISCRIMINATE). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. To me, it appears to be an original research or at least synthesis of few sources unknown to us at this moment. If some reliable sources could be found verifying existence of the subject, few words may be added making subject a redirect to Business plan article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Probably referring to E2 visa requirements. I would suggest a redirect but the name seems too vague to be useful in that respect. Vrac (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foston Musik

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

The article fails WP:GNG. The record label has not been discussed in reliable sources. The only artist signed to the label is Patoranking. Per WP:INHERITORG, a record label cannot inherit notability from the artists they're associated with. Versace1608 (Talk) 05:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 08:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Golden Ball Award

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

Hoax? I can't find anything at all to confirm this. Neither this nor this nor (most clearly) this give any useful results. There is a "Golden Ball" at the end of the Asian Cup[24], but that is something different than what is described here (different set of players, not annual, ...). Fram (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a hoax. For now, most of the news of this award can only be found on Chinese websites, but this award is existed. The 24 journalists are come from almost all AFC countries, and three European journalists from L'Equipe, La Gazzetta Dello Sport and Goal.com, only one of them is Chinese journalist, so I think this award is credible. And here is the news about Honda accepted this award in San Siro on Mar 16th, 2014 (Photo provided): http://soccer.titan24.com/2014-03-17/251224.html. And here the news about Son won the award in 2014 and journalists' comments on players: http://cnsoccer.titan24.com/2014-11-28/327188.html. Cirolchou (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the Chinese sources, but it seems as if at best it is a so-far non notable award, considering the lack of independent sources about it. Fram (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source would be fine, from AC Milan offical website: http://www.acmilan.com/en/news/breaking_news_show/55673. And a Italian language version news here: http://www.calciomercatonews.com/2014/03/16/asia-award-honda-eletto-miglior-giocatore-asiatico-del-2013/. And I found an official English news by Titan Sports: http://cnsoccer.titan24.com/2013-12-02/310316.html, this news translated this award with "Best Footballer In Asia", so I think I should move the article to this title. Cirolchou (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A source from AC Milan about a player from AC Milan winning an award is obviously not an independent source. You have now moved to the article to Best Footballer in Asia, but this as well, though no longer a hoax, has received very little attention[25], nothing at all even for the 2014 one. The Calciomercato source calls it the "Asia Award", giving us a third name for the same award in one year... I still can't find a single source for the 2014 award (under whatever name) for Son Heung-min. If this is notable, it doies a very good job at hiding it. Fram (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 version's result came out just today, I think it would take some days to have English news. After all it's an award that only has a two-year history. But the journalists that vote for this award are all come from famous agencies of their own countries, and almost all AFC countries, so the confidence of this award is obvious. Compared to AFC's Asian Footballer of the Year that is only opened to Asian players at Asian club, it would evaluate Asian footballer from a wider range. Cirolchou (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot see any evidence of notability. If you can find some reliable, third-party sources that cover the award in detail feel free to ping me so I can reconsider. Giant Snowman 09:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- @GiantSnowman:Actually,there are many independent sources about the award. For example:[26][27][28][29][30][31]--114.81.255.40 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the first four sources you show give the exact same result... And the sixth one seems to be from TitanSports. So if this is correct, then your six links show at most two independent sources, not six. Now, looking at the first of these two, I can't find no reference to the Award (using Google translate, but even so, I can see articles about AIDS, the NBA, and smartphones). So that leaves us with one source about the 2013 awards, apparently a press release from Titan, if I read it correctly. What's the independent aspect of that source? Fram (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first four sources are not the same at all. They are from four different newspapers, and transformed into a same mobile version by baidu. Also, google translate is useless. As a native Chinese speaker, I can tell you that there is reference to the award.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe Baidu gives a different view to you thanb it does to me, depending on our country or so? For me, all four links you provide are exactly the same, with one image (a child looking at weapons?) and a few sections including one about the NBA. Nothing on this page (as far as I can see) is about the award. Let's hope we hear from a few others who can give their results with your links. Fram (talk) 08:07, 2 December 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 21:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS, no sourced prose to indicate that this award has received any significant coverage itself. No prejudice against recreation if it becomes notable in the future, but the fact that the newspaper which awards it appears not to have a WP article says to me that if there is insufficient interest in the awarding body that a WP article does not exist, then an award created by that body is probably not yet notable itself. I'm not seeing anything above to indiacre reliable sources are discussing the award per se. Fenix down (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as unsourced BLP. If sources have been found, the article may be recreated.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Lemyre

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

WP:BLP of a television personality, relying almost entirely on primary sources with only a single linkrotted bare URL to indicate that anything here was ever properly verifiable in a reliable source. She might certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article if one can be written that cites proper reliable source coverage, but simply existing is not a notability freebie if the sourcing isn't there. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Sources as in: There aren't any. Link listed is dead. Nikto wha? 03:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drasar Monumental

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

Non-notable musician fails WP:MUSICBIO Philg88 ^♦talk 09:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 6] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses.

Drasar Monumental is half of a duo with MF Grimm, who is a prominent hip hop artist and comic book writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Swann (talk • contribs) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is "independently notable"—which MF Grimm is, but that notability is not inherited by Drasar Monumental. Philg88 ^♦talk 20:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any criterion of WP:NMUSIC being met here. --Michig (talk) 21:44, 5 December 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, Sam Walton (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I mean really folks, anyone involved with Hip Hop who reads comic books is obviously notable...but I'm a tad on the fence here. Does he personally have any hit/gold/platinum records or stuff I could really use to attest to otherwise? I met someone famous once and as it turned out it was my other brother Daryl - does that count? As stated above eloquently: Not Notable per WP:Notability Nikto wha? 02:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vir Singh (author)

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

Not a notable academic. He may in retirement head a department of a somewhat obscure, caste-ist educational institution and he may have written/translated quite extensively but neither qualifies him for an article on Wikipedia. Sitush (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Willing to decide if given more info: for example, if he isn't getting benefits in retirement for being head the department somewhat obscure, caste-ist educational institution then I say keep; otherwise not too sure. Please give more info about his/her retirement if possible. Were they forced out? --Chan12345 (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can find very little about him, which is the main problem. The name is a common one but sources that refer to him are not. The reason for me mentioning the points that I did is because we do have some subject-specific guidelines. Lack of coverage seems to suggest he fails the more general guideline. I know that he has translated a couple of books into English but those books are both very much in the "caste puffery" category of historical revisionism etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage required by the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 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, Sam Walton (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Middle East Report

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

A hardly notable periodical made by George Richards and Camilla Hall, two students at the University of Edinburgh. Most edits are made by User:Gergis, who tried to improve notability by editing other articles (like this one). Meanwhile the 'journal' is no more than a weblog. No links to external sources, and I could not find a reference to the at the University of Edinburgh's website. Jeff5102 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EMER was indeed founded by George Richards and Camilla Hall, while they were students -- but not sure that has any bearing on notability. As the article states, EMER was / is primarily a print journal -- so characterisation as "no more than a weblog" is wrong. EMER is not funded by the University of Edinburgh, so no reference on the University website irrelevant. Notability of EMER is also borne out by past contributors, which include university professors (Carole Hillenbrand [32]), journalists at the Financial Times (Camilla Hall [33]) and The Guardian (Fred McConnell [34]), broadcasters (George Richards [35]). gergis (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Jeff5102 (talk) 10:23, 1 December 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 21:51, 5 December 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, Sam Walton (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited from contributors; multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not finding the reliable, 3rd party coverage of the journal itself that would be needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero holdings in libraries known to worldcat. Large holdings don't convey notability, but few or no holdings usually correlates well with lack of notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of TV5 TV and radio stations--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYAZ-TV

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

Non-notable & unverifiable subject; no reliable sources that can establish its notability. Theenjay36 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Theenjay36 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Theenjay36 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~TV5 (Philippines)~~ List of TV5 TV and radio stations. It's true that adequate sourcing isn't here to justify standing alone as an independent article — however, for the purposes of Wikipedia's ability to serve as a complete reference, WP:NMEDIA specifies that a non-notable television or radio station should always still exist on Wikipedia as a redirect to a larger related topic (such as the network or service it broadcasts) rather than simply staying a permanent redlink. Bearcat (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~TV5 (Philippines)~~ List of TV5 TV and radio stations per Bearcat - Most TV programmes and or stations that aren't notable get redirected anyway. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it's better to have this article redirecited to List of TV5 TV and radio stations. Theenjay36 (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right...that is a more appropriate target. Thanks for that. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! :) Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of TV5 TV and radio stations per above.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 World Junior A Challenge rosters

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

What we have here is a list of people who are mostly non-notable. As a collective they are no more notable. I think it could make sense to list notable players (like scoring leaders or MVPs) on the main 2014 World Junior A Challenge page, but there's no value in listing the entire roster of each team. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way I look at it, is a) the tournament hasn't started yet, so there will be more coverage once it does start. Secondly, in the future there will be many NHL draft choices out of this set. In previous years people have place the rosters on the tournament page, but it seems to make the page weighty, so I decided to split this off. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Merge any notable players into the main article, and preferably get a reference to the rosters. As Shootmaster 44 said, there might be more coverage after the tournament, so we don't need the article now (but it may be useful after the tournament). James1011R (talk, contribs) 01:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added several references for the players on some of the teams. I will continue working on it, but I am sure this must pass GNG by now. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see a roster page for a non-IIHF event as necessary. Reso lute 01:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That a number of these players might be notable in the future is a WP:CRYSTAL argument at best -- that'd be like advocating that a list of the students in my high school during my senior year is notable because there happened to be a future NHL First Team All-Star in it. In order to sustain notability, it needs to be demonstrated that multiple reliable sources discuss the subject in enough detail to satisfy SIGCOV, and I don't see it here: there are a lot of sources which only refer to the subject in passing. Ravenswing 06:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may very well be true. At least for the majority of players from the two Canadian teams and Team USA, these players would receive significant coverage in their local communities as they are the top players on their USHL and CJHL teams and most are NCAA commits. Also, since Denmark is sending the same team to this tournament, they are sending to the 2015 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships, they would be just as notable here as there. I do realize that, the Big 6 nations at that tournament bring up the notability though. At any rate, I would say if a delete vote is determined, either merge this into the tournament page or my user space, that way once it no longer WP:CRYSTAL, it does not need to be recreated. I honestly, don't care whether it appears on the tournament page or a standalone page, I was simply following the format of the World Juniors articles, as I don't like the look of the previous tournament pages. On previous tournaments, the rosters are poorly laid out. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I'd just include it in the tournament article. GLG GLG (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a long list of non-notable hockey players. Playing in this junior event won't make them any more notable. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have to go delete on this as I don't see the rosters of a non-IIHF tournament as being all that notable. Heck some of the lower level IIHF tournaments probably aren't either. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With 2014 World Junior A Challenge. DMighton (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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