Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 September	15 September >

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kekacs

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

Non-notable high school and college swimmer. Fails the specific notability guidelines for high school athletes per WP:NHSPHSATH -- all significant coverage of subject is either found in his hometown Aiken, South Carolina newspaper or local Aiken media, and other coverage is either WP:ROUTINE and/or does not rise to the demanding standards of NHSPHSATH. Fails the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH -- no major college records or awards. Received trivial mentions and other ROUTINE coverage outside South Carolina when he was recognized as a Presidential Scholar. This is a classic case of a successful high school athlete still being non-notable per our notability standards for high school jocks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to meet WP:NSPORTS as a swimmer and the coverage is just the usual local paper stuff.Mdtemp (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Most coverage is just WP:ROUTINE.-- danntm ^T _C 19:27, 21 September 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 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship ball

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

Fails WP:N, WP:V, No reliable sources since 2006. These things exist on the web but that doesn't confer notability. Joja lozzo 23:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing to indicate this term to refer the decorative item as described is notable, most hits come back for this as the type of "Ball" you attend like a dance... Roberticus talk 16:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sufficient sourcing.-- danntm ^T _C 19:24, 21 September 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 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bikini New Zealand

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

Page created as promotion by user who appears to have very close (undisclosed) professional connections to Miss Supranational. Essentially its only claim to notability is that it decides who gets sent to this non-notable, deleted-and-salted pageant. It is also completely unreferenced - and I saw NOTHING in the 37 Google hits I got for a search for the pageant that was actually solid coverage of the pageant itself. A lot of the media stories which mention this pageant focus on the transgender model Amy Brosnahan and on Miss Bikini NZ's director, Katrina Turner's apparent tendency to say controversial things - I see few reliable sources that really focus on the pageant itself. Mabalu (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Appears to be strong COI/self-promotion from user undergoing sock investigation for this exact editing behaviour. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious delete for lack of notability and possible WP:COI. Maybe should have been speedy deleted db-promo --Jersey92 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy would have been a good idea, although I think AFDs such as this are necessary to establish that the creator's work is dubious in such a way that it's clear to other Wikipedians. Mabalu (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously not notable, as popular as it might be with the locals. I'm glad it came here - speedy deletion probably not a great idea in this case. Good call. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable - see also WP:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Supranational_(2nd_nomination) NealeFamily (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks substantial coverage by reliable sources. RS coverage is limited to controversial comments made by the event's director. Not even close to satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.-- danntm ^T _C 20:52, 21 September 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 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro de Abreu

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

This page is an autobiography and does not meet Wikipedia's notability standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelusflos (talk • contribs) 9:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed blank nomination. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nice local TV piece about his efforts, a promising student, but beyond that being 1/25 of a book on young enterpeneurs which itself is likely non-notable is not enough to pass the bar... Roberticus talk 16:44, 21 September 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 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Ladies

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

For all I can tell, this is a hoax for which one local publication has fallen. Does this even exist? Orange Mike | Talk 22:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails applicable notability guidelines for television shows. Show has not yet gone on the air and no immediate indication of when or if it will go on the air. Also, I have requested temporary semi-protection for the page. Safiel (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ''Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 20 September 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's a consensus for a keep and the original concerns seem to have been addressed. A big thank you to Hoary for his effort in updating the article and for finding additional sources. I will also go ahead and do the move as well. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drik picture library

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

This article has had large chunks of promotional text removed (it was written by a clearly COI account) but still seems to be a semi-coherent promotion for this picture agency and its related organisations. I'm not seeing anything anywhere to convince me it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Theres no explanation for the "award winning" claim either. Sionk (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and move to "Drik Picture Library", so capitalized). The article has at times been a bloated PR text (2009 example) and was crap when Sionk nominated it for deletion. And it's still an unconvincing mess now, with its almost complete lack of conventional references and strange section of "further reading". It's me who perpetrated this section -- as a stopgap measure, because I simply lack the time to do more work on this article in a great hurry. The section recycles what was previously a list of "references", but replaces dead links with Wayback copies and removes links that were obviously unusable. (Do not infer that I think all that survive are usable. I haven't paid close attention to all of them.) We have some ho-hum stuff here, but we also have a "case study" of Drik in a non-negligible book, and more. To me, the term "picture library" looks like "stock photo agency"; but (for those with any interest in notability in the normal, non-Wikipedia sense of the word) it's clear that this outfit is more. As for the comment that there's no explanation for "award winning", that's right, there wasn't -- but it only took me a couple of minutes to find (here) that not only did it get an award, but that the award was of €200,000, which I'd say is a fair amount of moolah. So yes, the article needs more work (at the end of which most of the "further reading" will be recycled as references [via <ref>these things</ref>] and the remainder dumped), but there's enough promise here for it to be retained. -- Hoary (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC) ... To summarize: (i) Gerhard Haupt and Pat Binder, "Drik: Images for change", (ii) Saad Hammadi, "Drik turns 18", and (iii) the case study in the book provide enough decently sourced info for a short article, and (iv) we have evidence of a €200,000 award: notability in both the normal and the Wikipedia senses of the word. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm liking this one. Given the cultural and language barriers, there's a surprising amount of english language coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do agree that the article needed to be improved when nominated for deletion. But there are several independent reliable sources, in addition to those already mentioned, that indicate Drik's notability. An article on the New York Times with several paragraphs about Drik, noting that "Drik put Bangladesh on the map for photography." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/arts/international/in-bangladesh-a-vibrant-contemporary-scene.html?_r=1 A book published by Routledge, Icons of War and Terror, describes the founder Alam's vision and Drik's work. This reference could also serve as a source for the concept "majority world." http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=dtBVDQ5mtm8C&pg=PA56&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Puchku (talk) 08:54, 21 September 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 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irregularis

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

No indication of notability. The lone third-party source doesn't say what it's cited for and does not cover the typeface in any detail. Huon (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see lack of sources a threat to adequate accurate verifiable coverage here. This is a font and there is not much to add to the article, in theory, were the sources to exist. Gryllida (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This issue is not "accurate verifiable coverage", it's notability, and neither the article nor a google search reveal any sources that indicate the notability of this font. According to this message board post by the font creator, this was an amateur's first attempt at creating a font over a couple of days, and is a font that the other users of that forum called "about average for a free font from a first time designer". Barring extraordinary circumstances, it's hard to see how such a font could be notable. I'll also note that the article was created by Baville, who used to have the username Arman88, which sounds similar to the name of the font's creator Arman Ay. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Per nom, the 1 independent mention is very brief and does not constitute significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 04:08, 21 September 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 02:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carina Andersson

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

I've been looking this one over the past couple of days and thinking that from the look of it-it seems that it should be merged with that band that is listed. Unless if there is anything about her doing solo stuff or something like that. Wgolf (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 31 August 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 03:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only found one reference on NPR, a one-line mention praising her soprano voice, but that's not enough to meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently there are not enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG.-- danntm ^T _C 20:59, 21 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project Born

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

Fails WP:BAND. The group lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 21:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 31 August 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 03:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and redirect to Psychopathic Records. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 20 September 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.

DiMera family

The result was redirect (non admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

nearly unsourced fancruft The Banner talk 16:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 31 August 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 03:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to founde Santo DiMera. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 20 September 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 02:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

António Saiote

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

largely unsourced BLP with doubtable notability. The Banner talk 16:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 31 August 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 03:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:20, 21 September 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 02:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Melker Project

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. My first thought was a merge to Scott Melker, but this is also taged for a lack of notability. Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Scott Melker. Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:26, 20 September 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 02:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Melker

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. My first thought was a merge to The Melker Project, but this is also taged for a lack of notability. Please see WP:Articles for deletion/The Melker Project. Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 31 August 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 03:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Can't find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:26, 20 September 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 02:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NutriBullet

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

WP:GNG. Unremarkable product, borderline promotional. Only 'independant' source lookd like a PR job. TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give a background on this, I'd like to put in a few words. For one, I do not even own this product, so I do not have any close ties to it. Second, I was very careful to include neutral language, and I appreciate that an editor removed some promotional style language. And, even though I'm experienced on some other wikis, I'm a newcomer here, and I knew from the beginning that there would be problems with the article.

As far as notability, I must acknowledge that the NutriBullet is not extremely popular. Like I mentioned on the discussion page, though, very well known stores sell the product. Writing Enthusiast (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 31 August 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 03:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Completely non-notable nutritional product. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above, Fails WP:PRODUCT –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coevrage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe "lacking in depth coverage" is a legitimate reason for deletion. That's what the stub tag is for. --Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 02:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no in depth coverage in the sources, how can it meet WP:GNG? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in independent sources.-- danntm ^T _C 21:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above fails WP:PRODUCT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 21 September 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 Clerys. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guineys

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

Fails NCORP Mr. Guye (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no independent notability, merge to Clerys, the parent company. 109.79.81.156 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 31 August 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 03:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Clerys. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Countries bordering the European Union

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

This page is purely trivia. No reason whatsoever for the subject to have its own page. Mr. Guye (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 31 August 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 03:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as bordering on the inane. Wikipedia is not an atlas. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of nations that are part of a major international organization like the EU is notable. A list of nations that happen to share a border with those nations is trivia. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:59, 15 September 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 02:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the Chalionese universe

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

Fancruft made into an essay in a poor attempt to pass A7. Mr. Guye (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 31 August 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 03:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No extensive reliable sourcing for the religion itself. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This is a reasonably accurate article, which has been in existence for a number of years, on a significant facet of Lois McMaster Bujold's Chalion novels. However, while the article as it stands probably deserves to survive somewhere, that place is probably not Wikipedia - it currently badly infringes Wikipedia guidelines against in-universe articles and what we choose here to call original research. A limited amount of the article could be referenced from independent reliable secondary sources such as this one (and almost all the rest from primary sources) but unfortunately, at least as yet, there do not seem to be enough substantial reliable sources to justify a standalone article on the topic.

However, there are enough further sources on other aspects of the Chalion series and its associated universe to justify a standalone article (separate from the existing articles on the individual novels) - the sources available for this topic would justify at least a short section on it within such an article, and a distinctly shortened version of this article, based on what can be reliably sourced, would be a useful starting-point for it. PWilkinson (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't anything to merge, and moving to draft space would only delay the inevitable. Besides the one source offered above, I can't find anything that discusses the topic of religion in this series. Maybe a fan could do a better search, but I see no evidence that this topic is notable. This sort of comprehensive, in-universe topic should be on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sourcing. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 20 September 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 02:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Nera

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

GNG failing group. Search results are unrelated to this group. Mr. Guye (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 31 August 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, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete possible WP:AUTOBIO, definitely promotional BlueSalix (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Geraci

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

Unremarkable artist. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 August 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 04:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this one hinges on whether the "Cavaliere dell'Ordine della stella della Solidarietà Italiana" award (now confirmed by sourcing to the Presidenza della Repubblica site) is in itself sufficient evidence of notability. Anyone with knowledge of the Italian honours system? AllyD (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an artist working primarily in non-Englisg speaking countries prior to the internet won't have screeds of refs, but he got some significant public art commissions. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:33, 20 September 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 02:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Maurice

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

Biography of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for municipal office, and as the leader of an unregistered political party which never actually contested a partisan election and doesn't have a Wikipedia article to redirect him to. Neither claim of notability is sufficient to get him past WP:NPOL, and the volume of sourcing present isn't enough to put him over WP:GNG either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 30 August 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 04:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable candidate for office. Tiller54 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Farm (band). (I don't usually close on 1 !vote but after 3 weeks and only !vote it seems logical to redirect than relist). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Grimes

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

A one line bio that could be merged into this band (which I'm not quite sure how notable the band is, but it seems to have some following) Wgolf (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Farm (band) seems reasonable as I can not find coverage on this person to suggest that a standalone article would be warranted. Gongshow talk 16:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G7: the only editor to make substantive contributions to the article requested deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DZZH-FM

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

Article appears to fail notability through no references or evidence of it actually existing. Also appears to fail to meet WP:NOTCRYSTAL as isnt due to launch until 2018 so is no guarantee it will actually launch. Amortias (T)(C) 21:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As per nominator. Four years in future is pushing the boundries.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:10, 14 September 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 02:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lương Xuân Trường

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

Yet another unotable soccer player! (I think I'll just keep whatever is left from this guy as a prod to make it easier) Wgolf (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as noted by others BlueSalix (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion has resulted in a clear consensus. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CBSUA Computer Science High School of Bicolandia

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

No sources. WP:VERIFY search resulted in self-pub. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Internet sources clearly confirm it exists. The article should therefore be kept by longstanding precedent and consensus as a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator has previously had it explained that we regard all high schools with a real existence as notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long-standing operational practice is that we keep, improve and expand articles about verifiable high schools worldwide. We do not delete such articles, unless they are hoaxes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as high schools are deemed notable. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:OUTCOMES. High schools are automatically notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all keep votes above. All high schools with a real existence is notable. SmileBlueJay97 talk 09:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:25, 18 September 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 02:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ksor Úc

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

Unotable soccer (footballer) player. Wgolf (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 15 September 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 - was heading that way and then was boldly redirected by GRuban anyway (non-admin close). St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xtam4 (Mafia boss)

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

Article created by WP:SPA. Unremarkable. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to G Force Pakistan. Article is a thinly veiled copy-paste of G Force Pakistan's lead section. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and just make this a redirect to G Force Pakistan, as having it a separate article adds nothing. --GRuban (talk) 19:40, 19 September 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 02:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trần Anh Thi

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

Not notable soccer (footballer) player. Again Wgolf (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSOCCER, having never played in a fully professional league, and contains no references. Should have just left the BLPPROD tag on the article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 September 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 userfied per request of the primary author. Now at User:Wfbrooks/D. W. Cooper. 28bytes (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D. W. Cooper

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

Subject fails WP:BIO. There is nothing here that suggests encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 14 September 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 September 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ad Orientem.

This is the second time you have proposed that D. W. Cooper be deleted. The first time (in January 2014) I responded, as requested, with a statement on Talk: D. W. Cooper justifying the inclusion of this article.

Before I respond again (but where? I've copied this note to your talk page), I want to be sure that you have read and understood my remarks there. If so, can you please explain further what reasons you have for proposing deletion for a second time?

Thank you. Wfbrooks (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BEFORE C3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors..." I agree with the content contributor that the nomination has not sufficiently documented to the community the need for a community discussion. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the discussion here (with WP:NPASR), and raise the concerns are on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response As there appears to be some confusion, I will expand on my above nomination for deletion statement. The subject of the article does not appear to meet the standards for encyclopedic notability contained in the General Notability Guidelines and more specifically the notability criteria for biographies. The sources are almost entirely primary and thus do not lend themselves to establishing notability for the subject. There is little in the form of coverage from secondary or tertiary sources and certainly not enough to meet the standard of in depth coverage from reliable secondary sources. In short there is nothing exceptional about this person. He was a businessman, one of many tens of thousands, who engaged in the normal things that business people do. Although not a fatal issue, I also note that the article has an essayish tone to it. Most of these issues have been raised previously in the original PROD that was taken down in January in the hopes the article would be improved. I also attached maintenance tags which have been removed without evident correction of the problems cited. While there are many issues with articles that can be fixed, notability is not usually one of them. It's either there or it isn't. A Google has yielded nothing that rings the notability bell for this individual. I am happily prepared to reconsider the nomination if some evidence of notability is offered. But after nine months I see no reason to sit on this any longer. For now I !vote to Delete as the nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to response. Thank you for the clarification. I'm afraid that I'm rather new to Wikipedia, so I don't know all the jargon: what is a "PROD", please? and what are "maintenance tags"?

As for the substance of the question . . . The problem with secondary or tertiary sources, limited to historical publications issued in paper formats, is that they often do not reflect current thinking about a topic. This is especially true of the music industry, in which much scholarship until recently was constrained because archival collections were inaccessible unless one happened to be in the right place with the right credentials. In my view, public databases or archives (such as the Indiana and Brown online resources I cited) are the 21st-century equivalent of secondary sources like published anthologies or encyclopedias in, let's say, 1965. In fact, they're better: they offer a much more objective, quantifiable measure of importance—and hence of notability—than do historical studies written to further a particular argument and which thus (necessarily) take an editorial stance. I would suggest that if a publisher was responsible for a substantial body of significant music that is (nowadays) accessible to the public, as demonstrated in online archives, that publisher is "notable" and deserves an article. I'd also argue that if that publisher is noteworthy in part because his work contributed to the evolution of underrepresented regional or ethnic cultures in the United States, that further supports inclusion. D. W. Cooper meets both these criteria and should consequently remain in Wikipedia, it seems to me. As for an "essayish" tone, possibly that results from my inexperience. I'm very open to editorial advice; can you suggest what sentences or phrases impart this quality and how to improve them?

I've not encountered this process of proposed deletion before; as I said, I'm rather new. It all seems rather threatening and inhospitable, I must say! But your last sentence seems to indicate that some electoral body votes whether to include or remove. I would, of course, vote to include—if I'm a member of that electoral body. Presumably over the next few days others will weigh in on this matter, which at present seems to be mostly a discussion between the two of us (which I welcome, I hasten to say). There is a deadline, I believe, in a week. Could you explain (I do apologise for my ignorance, really I do!) how the voting is tallied at that point and what then happens? I don't find the wikipedia page very clear on that point. Wfbrooks (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia (belatedly). I am sorry that your article is in danger of being deleted. It isn't personal. It's just that we have to enforce certain standards since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The term PROD refers to proposed deletion. It is one of the three commonly used methods for removing articles that may not meet our standards. You can read about it here WP:PROD. The other two are speedy deletion (WP:CSD) which is not applicable here, and articles for deletion WP:AFD which is what is going on now. In an AfD discussion interested editors will take a look at the article and discuss whether or not it meets our standards, and if not, whether or not it is fixable or better to just scrap it. Again there is nothing personal about it, although it undoubtedly sucks to have an article you worked on deleted. For now I am going to suggest that you talk to an ADMIN and ask him/her to move your article from the mainspace to a sub-page of your user account or perhaps your WP:SANDBOX. This will remove the immediate threat to your article and allow you time to peruse the notability guidelines linked above and make suitable improvements at your leisure. Then, if and when you think your article is ready, you can submit it to Articles for Creation for review by experienced editors before moving it back into the mainspace. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you will agree to this course of action I will withdraw my AfD nomination in consideration of your agreeing to WP:USERFY your article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thank you for the response and the suggestion, though I'm still not very clear about the deletion process. Isn't what you suggest effectively equivalent to deleting the page and starting again from the beginning for approval? I note that on the WP:USERFY page, section 3, this point is made explicitly: "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted. Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes." It would seem that the process you suggest to resolve this matter actually accomplishes what you apparently wish to have happen.

I would also really like to have your comments on the substance of my response—that is, the matter of assessing notability using 21st-century resources rather than published secondary sources from a previous century. It seems that a potentially valuable discussion is being diverted into administrative mechanisms that neither resolve the immediate question nor allow larger issues to be debated. But perhaps there is a better forum for the latter; it seems that we two are the only ones contributing to this page, and we seem only to be going round in circles.

In any case I have left a message on the talk page for User:28bytes, who is the first administrator on the list at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active and who, coincidentally, declares an interest in music articles. Perhaps this will move things forward. I'm heavily committed for the rest of this week, however, so I will have little time to respond further until the weekend.Wfbrooks (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wfbrooks, on the article's talk page you referred to "on-line digital sheet-music repositories at Brown, Indiana, and other institutions". Are these the "21st-century resources" to which you are referring? If so, these are not sufficient by themselves to demonstrate the notability of someone (i.e. a piece of music does not tell us anything about the person who wrote it or published it). Do you have any contemporary sources that discuss Cooper and his impact on music? The article appears to reflect one person's assessment of Cooper based upon pre-1940 material. An important guideline relevant to this discussion is Wikipedia:Notability (music). - Location (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wfbrooks, not all Admins on the list are active on here. If you don't get a reply in a timely manner may I suggest dropping a line with Dougweller‎? He is quite active and I have found him to be extremely helpful with newcomers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for the information and advice. I did in fact have a timely response, and I've replied on User talk:28bytes. I think there's nothing more to add here. Wfbrooks (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, and apologies for not getting around to this - I noticed that this had been responded to but still should have noted that I saw it. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is still a consensus that we should not have this article. Sandstein 16:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson (police officer)

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

Looks to be a COATRACK/Attack article. Was previously deleted on Sep. 6th. Would seem to be eligible for speedy deletion, but a veteran user has suggested on the article talk page (incorrectly, I think) that the subject is no longer BLP1E notable. The guy's not notable, has only been Ferguson PD for 4 years, and IMHO the article is already starting to shape up exactly like the stated description of improper attack pages — i.e. it's going to be dominated by negative material about his rather loose relationship to this controversial police shooting, with a specific aim at insinuating some kind of wrongdoing or culpability on his part. Not what BLPs are for, as I understand it.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion template kept mucking everything up, would only display as plain text -- if I used the template it just ended up creating a copy of the first discussion in which the article was deleted. No text of mine would display. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up the entire page so apologies if i've messed anything up or missed something out. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this as article was tagged under G4 .... but someone disagreed with my AFD closure ... so have reopened. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are thousands of news sources available that discuss the subject in various levels of detail. Easily meets WP:BASIC. If the article has improper content, or is being used as a WP:COATRACK, then the appropriate course of action is to edit the article, not delete it outright.- Mr X 21:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please let editors try and build a good quality article about this Chief of Police. He is notable for being the chief during an incident that attracted national and international media attention; the DOJ and the FBI are conducting investigations on the police department that he heads. With proper care, this article can conform to BLP and provide information to our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Note that not even Michael Brown has a standalone article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that this article should be kept, but if this close as "delete" per the concerns expressed, how will readers find out when they search for his name in Wikipedia? At a minimum a redirect to Ferguson Police Department (Missouri) would be warranted, same as Michael Brown (disambig page with wl to the Shooting of Michael Brown, or Darren Wilson (police officer) which redirects to the shooting article. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Jackson is paid to give press conferences, he isn't low-profile. Darmokand (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most senior police officials in a state, even a small state like Rhode Island, would be considered notable as officeholders at the state or province level, as per WP:Politician. So would the most senior police officials in Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Nunavut or the Falkland Islands, as the level immediately below the Federal level counts -- even if its population is small -- as per WP:Politician. Meanwhile, the chief of Police of New York City, Tokyo, Shanghai, Moscow, wouldn't merit coverage, unless they measured up to the criteria of the WP:GNG.
If Jackson measures up to the criteria of the WP:GNG he merits coverage. Period.
Why don't we have individual articles on the hundreds of thousands of individual who are currently Chiefs of Police around the world? Those individuals haven't done anyything to stand out. They haven't appeared on Sean Hannitty's show. They haven't had commentators from across the political spectrum, make observations about their job performance, or their motives.
Second, nominator called upon the authority of a (mis)interpretation of the COATRACK essay, claiming that the article currently an "attack article", or is shaping up to be an "attack article". If Jackson has said or done something that is extraordinary, it is absolutely not an "attack" to cite good references that say his actions are extraordinary. Or, the reverse, if Jackson didn't do the usual thing, and good references say so, using those references to cover however he behaved extraordinarily, would not make this an "attack article." And if the good references refute claims Jackson said or did something extraordinary, and the article uses those references to say that, that too would not be a an attack article.
Has Jackson said or done something extraordinary? Maybe. Usually when there is strong reason to suspect a police officer has committed a serious breach of their local code of conduct, the officer is generally suspended, with pay, and the superior decline to comment, instead, when asked, they express confidence in the neutrality and judgment of the third party called in to perform a review of his conduct. If Jackson didn't suspend the shooter; if he failed to make sure the scene was secured; if he has taken sides, and tried to defend the shooter and his colleagues, then I strongly suggest this would all be highly notable behavior. On the other hand, if Jackson did none of those things, but less reputable sources say so, then, frankly, it would be irresponsible to not cover the refutation. Geo Swan (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The Chief of Police is entrusted by the state to explain state policy to the citizens-- it's not a low profile job. If WP:GNG is met, it's a keep-- WP:BLP1E is only for low-profile people-- not people elected or appointed to exercise the power of the state. --Darmokand (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why are we having another discussion? This article has already been deleted after an AfD discussion which finished nine days ago. Nothing has changed. This man is still "notable" for one incident, in which he was not even directly involved - he simply responded to a situation and did his job (whether he did it well or badly is irrelevant to his notability). Everything else stems from that. He is head of a small police department in a small city. Unlike Geo Swan above, I do happen to believe that chiefs of larger departments are notable by virtue of their office (as do many others - since we apply common sense and not dogma - of course the police chiefs of New York City, Tokyo, Shanghai and Moscow are notable!), but he is not. He is simply not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The chiefs of NYC, Tokyo, etc, can rise to wikipedia notability when they satisfy the criteria of significant coverage laid out in the WP:GNG. If a chief of NYC, Tokyo, does his job so smoothly he or she doesn't trigger any controversy, and thus doesn't trigger "significant coverage" the GNG says he or she isn't notable.
  Jackson has triggered multiple times the significant coverage the GNG requires, and since he fulfills the GNG requirement, many times over, he is notable. Period.
  Sorry, but I think I may detect in your comment a kind of editorializing I have seen in other {{afd}}. It seems to me that you aren't really disputing the massive coverage Jackson has triggered, including i highbrow publications like the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal -- because you can't dispute the massive coverage. It is there for anyone who knows how to perform a web search to find. Rather, I am afraid it seems to me that what you are really saying is that Jackson shouldn't be considered notable. You and I aren't reliable, verifiable, authoritative sources. We don't get to start articles on topics we consider important, just because we consider them important, if no reliable, verifiable authoritative sources have ever written about that topic. The flip side of this is that even if you and I personally agree very strongly that a certain topic is B.S., is trivial, is not worth writing about, or thinking about -- but the authors of reliable, verifiable, authoritative sources, like the NYTimes, or the Wall Street Journal, have not agreed with us, and have written extensively on that topic, we have no choice but to set aside our personal feelings, and accept that the well covered topic has more than fulfilled our notability criteria. Geo Swan (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons in the last afd. Nothing has changed, the man has had his fifteen minutes,TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15 minutes? With a DOJ investigation on the use of force by his department during his tenure, and an FBI investigation to boot? More like a few years. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...by his department..." WP:NOTINHERIT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the department that he leads. Same as we will have an article on the CEO of a company, if the company was embroiled in a controversy during his tenure in which he played a central part. Jackson meets by a wide margin the notability guidelines, and his notability will continue to raise during coming months when the grand jury investigation concludes. And no, that is not WP:CRYSTAL, that is a fact. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be 9,999 other Chiefs of Police forces of comparable size in the USA, who we shouldn't be covering, because nothing they have said or done has triggered a firestorm of controversy and coverage as the personal choices Jackson has made. Maybe among those 9,999 other Police Chiefs 9,900 have done exemplary jobs, and haven't done anything to trigger coverage. We shouldn't cover them in individual articles, because their examplary performance is already covered in the general articles on Policing. And, if there are 99 other Police Chiefs who have made personal choices just as controversial as Jackson's we shouldn't cover them either, because they got away with. They slipped under the media's radar. Their controversial personal choices haven't triggered significant coverage, so they don't meet the criteria for a standalone article. This leaves us with Jackson, and whoever was the Chief of Police of LA, during the Rodney King riots, and whoever was Chief of Police of NOLA during Hurricane Katrina. Notable, by virtue of the massive significant coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- You predict Jackson will be forgotten? Wow, that seems incredibly unlikely. We have already had several major newspapers and TV channels prepare long profiles, specifically about him personally. When coverage of someone rises to the level it has in his case the Press doesn't forget. A year from now, or five years from now, when another Chief of Police exercises similarly controversial judgment, reporters will compare the two Chiefs. This is what reporters do. Count on it. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrX, Cwobeel, and GeoSwan's comment. "BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." The subject has clearly had extensive media/promotional coverage, including giving "scheduled interviews to national media" and "holding press conferences". Subject was a speaker who has "garnered significant independent, non-local coverage". Subject "holds a position of preeminence, power or authority". And while the new DOJ investigation is arguably a 'second event', can we really doubt Jackson has, at minimum, played "a major role in one major event"???
Chief Jackson is not a "low profile individual"-- BLP1E is thus inapplicable.Darmokand (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NeilN's comments, WP:BLP1E, and previous AfD. Arzel (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be ridiculous by all standards to have an article on Riley Reid and not on this person. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So change our notability guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to change anything, as this person meets the notability threshold by a respectable margin . - Cwobeel (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a bio to fall within the limitations of WP:BLP1E, it needs to meet all three conditions described there, and Jackson does not meet any of them. The persistent coverage is another element that makes Jackson not falling within the BLP1E criteria. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An argument could be made for #3. #1 and #2 clearly do apply. I don't believe his role is substantial enough to satisfy #3, but I can see that being an argument. Arzel (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Multiple events: The shooting of Michael Brown and how he handled it, the three weeks unrest that followed and his role in it, ongoing investigations of his department by the DOJ and the FBI.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. No chance of that given the upcoming grand jury decision, and the eventual release of the FBI and the DOJ investigations (In both cases: if the department he leads is found to have broken the law, or if he is cleared)
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. An abundance of local, national and internationals sources, including dedicated profile pages in many media outlets makes him a central actor.

- Cwobeel (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is just gaming the rule via strategic time-slicing. Under the same logic, my brushing my teeth is really a series of many discrete events.

2. Plain crystal balling. You're just assuming that he is going to turn out to be a central figure in the investigation.

3. If, as you argue, Jackson's role is both "substantial" and "well-documented", and that he is clearly a "central actor", how come the article doesn't yet have a single detail about his involvement or role? And let's also note that since this is an investigation, there's no guarantee of there being anything to see here. The accusations may amount to nothing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great comparison with tooth brushing (really?). Of course he is mentioned in both articles. Fifteeen times in the shooting article, and five times on the unrest article. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was indeed a very apt analogy. If you didn't quite understand, I can explain further.

Anyway: I didn't say anything about him being mentioned multiple times in Wikipedia articles. I was referring to him having a documented, substantive role in the DOJ investigation, which is so far entirely lacking. Without that, he's just BLP1E. Even with that, it's debatable whether we're truly talking about more than one event for BLP1E purposes. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that is why we are debating! This is the way I see it: If he was the chief of police when a controversial shooting took place, and that's it, BLP1E would apply. But he was also the Chief of Police that used militarized response to protests which resulted in him being forced to cede authority (this does not happen often). The Missouri Governor made a scathing assessment of his competence in dealing with the unrest. In addition, his four years tenure as chief of police is being investigated by the DOJ regarding use of force. And add to it the fact that the FBI is conducting a separate investigation of his department. These are non-trivial events directly related to the subject of the article, and although sequential events, they are all distinct, highly notable events, and very well covered by local, national and international press. That is why BLP1E does not apply. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well since you don't seem to have responded to my objection about the time-slicing, I'll just comment again that IMO this is just artificially parsing events in order to try to turn one incident into many incidents, when really all we're really seeing is a single event and its aftermath. Hence BLP1E. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "time slicing" argument is what I am debating. What I presented is evidence that these are all separate events, not one continuum as you argued. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (marginal redirect?) Seems non-notable BLP1E to me. Also per the previous AFD. (I also wonder why and how an article that was deleted a couple of days ago is back.) Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but your question "...wonder why and how an article that was deleted a couple of days ago is back..." suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the wikipedia's deletion policy. Recreation of previously deleted material is subject to speedy deletion. What we have here is a BRAND NEW DRAFT. User:Cwobeel is on record that he was unaware that there had been a previous version when he or she started this version. This new version shares no passages with the deleted article, so anyone arguing that it be deleted has to participate in a brand new {{afd}}.
  Deletion is supposed to be based on the notability of the topic, not the current state of the article. I suggest either the delete !voters in the first {{afd}} forgot that, or that this is a fast moving topic and additional references arrived in the intervening weeks, that made clear that the topic of Thomas Jackson now measures up to the GNG.
- As for the repeated nonsense meme that Jackson is a peripheral player in a single event... On the day of the shooting Michael Brown and Darren Wilson were the primary players and Jackson was a peripheral player. But Jackson then made administrative and PR decisions so controversial that he had his authority to Police his own city stripped from him when first the County Police and then the State Police were ordered in. Are you old enough to remember when President Eisenhower had to order in the regular Army to enforce SCOTUS desegregation in Little Rock Arkansas? (Arkansas's Governor had called up the National Guard militia to prevent desegregation.) This kind of event -- higher authority ordering a more senior level of policing to take over from a more junior level of policing -- it is almost unprecedented. It is a brand new event by any logical measure, and Jackson is right at the center of it. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the sort of POV editorializing that we reserve for reliable sources. You are essentially saying: there are going to be important sources saying what I just said. Crystal balling.

Also, calling the opposing argument a "nonsense meme" is just silly and childish. I suggest stopping.

I'm sure the point is well-taken about it being an accident that this article was re-created shortly after deletion, but that doesn't mean we need to come up with new reasons to delete if the old ones still apply. The fact that new prose has been generated really doesn't change things. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete BLP1E. Brown and Wilson do not have articles, his involvement in the incident is nonexistent, and in the aftermath while important is just one of many. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown has no article because he is dead, and indeed fits BLP1E. Wilson is now in hiding due to concerns about his safety and very little has been reported on him; that will not change in the future regardless of the outcome. Jackson's involvement cannot have been "nonexistent", because we have abundant sources about his involvement. Just read the comments above yours. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By nonexistent I am referring to the shooting itself. He has involvement with the aftermath, to be sure. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brown & Wilson are low profile and BLP1e might apply to them. But Chief Jackson is paid to give interviews, press conferences, etc. He hold a special position of authority. BLP1e isn't made for public figures like celebrities, politicians, or other non-low-profile individuals. Darmokand (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how high was his profile before this one event? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:1E BlueSalix (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the fry. Nice choice for your first edit after a long forced break. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A statistical majority of my edits are in AfD and RfC discussions. There's no WP:CONSPIRACY. BlueSalix (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think that BLP1E is applicable. I do not think there is any point in rehashing the arguments made above in this AfD, so I won't. James500 (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to 2014 Ferguson unrest This is a tough call for me. Nonetheless, I make my !vote or the following reasons. While consensus can change, it might take more than 15 days; therefore I am reluctant to ignore just closed AfDs. Furthermore, we do not have many articles on police chiefs in suburban municipalities with a population of 22,000. This indicates such practice is such officials tend not to be notable. Indeed, most of Jackson's coverage is in the context of the Michael Brown shooting and the ensuing unrest, and he is is properly discussed in article about those event. It may be there will be more coverage about him, and his notability can be revisited at that juncture. Further, while his department may be under investigation, merely being under federal investigation is not grounds for notability.-- danntm ^T _C 23:17, 21 September 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. Snow Keep on this. I do not see how anyone who is aware of our standards for notability could have nominated this, pre DavidE. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip L. Pearl

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

Promotional article on an unremarkable neurologist. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Needs work, but meets WP:NACADEMIC; holds named chair at Harvard School of Medicine. He is the Director of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology at Boston Children's Hospital and William G. Lennox Chair and Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School (easily verifiable). - Neonorange (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously. Holder of a named chair at Harvard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. As well as the named chair (WP:PROF#C5) he has many highly cited publications including one with over 1000 citations (#C1), and he's a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics (possible #C3 depending on how selective they are). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 15 September 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 02:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lục Xuân Hưng

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

Yet another soccer player who is not notable and has barely even played that many games, maybe someday, but not today! Wgolf (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSOCCER, having never played in a fully professional league, and contains no references. Should have just left the BLPPROD tag on the article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:RS BlueSalix (talk) 05:06, 20 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admir Xheviti

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

Blatantly non-notable. Just because you are good at playing football at a high school does not mean you should get your own article. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:36, 15 September 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 02:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FC Atlanta

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

Non-notable association football club. No references whatsoever. Google failed to find this group, instead bringing up unrelated Atlanta-based groups. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speaking as a sports fan and resident of Atlanta, Georgia, this is a non-notable soccer (association football) club. The article is unclear, in fact, to what "FC Atlanta" the article even refers. There are several youth soccer leagues here that apparently use the "FC Atlanta" name as a DBA. What is perfectly clear is that no fully professional soccer team ever operated here as "FC Atlanta." The current professional soccer club in Atlanta is the Atlanta Silverbacks, a fully professional club in the second-tier NASL. Bottom line: subject fails the specific notability guideline applicable to sports teams and other organizations per WP:ORG, and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence to suggest that this club is notable, nor is there any references either. IJA (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 15 September 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 02:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Heald

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

Heald is a prospective parliamentary candidate and as such fails WP:POLITICIAN. He's an unelected candidate and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. What little coverage there has been is routine "he's the Labour candidate for x constituency" and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tiller54 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Clearly doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. On a related note, User:Rathfelder has created similar articles for several other Labour Party candidates. I have PROD'd several and put on a note on his/her Talk page, but would welcome further review from other editors. Bondegezou (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems premature. Articles on minor political candidates are best not created until after the election, when it's clear whether they've won or lost; unsuccessful political candidates are usually not notable unless they have received a particularly significant amount of media attention. This one hasn't, so far. Robofish (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply being an as-yet-unelected candidate in an ongoing or future election is not, in and of itself, adequate notability to justify a Wikipedia article under WP:NPOL — either you demonstrate that the candidate was already notable enough to qualify for an article under a different inclusion criterion before they were named a candidate, or they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Heald is an NHS consultant makes his candidature in itself noteworthy. Rathfelder (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NHS consultants don't get an automatic presumption of notability in Wikipedia either, if enough coverage isn't there to get them past WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rathfelder is making the argument that a consultant being a candidate is an inherently noteworthy event, although I feel that is something that would have to be said by a reliable source to carry weight. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The NHS has suddenly become a much more potent political issue and NHS staff standing for election becomes more noteworthy. Rathfelder (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN BlueSalix (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL.-- danntm ^T _C 23:52, 21 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gale

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

Biography of a perennial candidate whose claim of notability rests on unsuccessful runs for political office in a single city — not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL. It's not particularly well-sourced either, as it relies extremely heavily on unreliable (e.g. blogs, local bicycling advocacy committee newsletters) and primary sources (her own Twitter); the number of references here would be more than halved if I actually trimmed them back to the legitimately reliable sources, and when you're counting references, "less than half of 16" is a WP:GNG fail. If this were Austinpedia, I'd let it go — but it's not, and what I'm not seeing here is a substantive or well-sourced reason why she needs an article in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 07:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Numerous reliable sources regarding her death（[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]）and her candidacy.（[13][14][15][16][17]) (210 articles in [18])The article doesn't need to rely on primary sources, since we can write a good article based on the given sources. The nominator's rationale sounds rather WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POV. --180.172.239.231 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's rationale "sounds" like nothing of the sort; it sounds like, and is, "the article relies almost entirely on bad sources". And being a candidate fails WP:NPOL, so coverage of a candidacy has to explode into Christine O'Donnell proportions (which this didn't) to get a candidate into Wikipedia just for being a candidate — and coverage of a person's death doesn't get them past GNG by itself either; people don't qualify for Wikipedia articles just for dying, so if that's where the weight of the sourcing sits then it doesn't get a person over the bar either. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete. Appears to be written by a fan. Fails WP:NPOL. Her biggest claim to notability IMO appears to be "her" obvious affinity towards LGBT. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd caution you to leave your personal feelings about LGBT people (i.e. scare-quoting a transgender person's gender pronoun) out of it — her gender identity has no bearing, in either direction, on whether she qualifies for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails NPOL.Mr. Guye (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep. Jennifer might not have been a politician but she sure did represent Texas eccentricity and had lots of media mentions for being a homeless transgender woman. Her death reports alone were covered by a range of local and national media. This needs to be cleaned up not removed. Brow Driperoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Browdripper (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely disagree with IP 180.172.239.231's characterisation of Bearcat's reasons for proposing the article for deletion, but the vast number of reliable sources that he has provided, in addition to those already present on her article, means that I'm confident she passes WP:GNG. Tiller54 (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 14 September 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 September 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local coverage only and fails NPOL. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 23 September 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 userfied per request of the primary author. Now at User:Wfbrooks/D. W. Cooper. 28bytes (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D. W. Cooper

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

Subject fails WP:BIO. There is nothing here that suggests encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 14 September 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 September 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ad Orientem.

This is the second time you have proposed that D. W. Cooper be deleted. The first time (in January 2014) I responded, as requested, with a statement on Talk: D. W. Cooper justifying the inclusion of this article.

Before I respond again (but where? I've copied this note to your talk page), I want to be sure that you have read and understood my remarks there. If so, can you please explain further what reasons you have for proposing deletion for a second time?

Thank you. Wfbrooks (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BEFORE C3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors..." I agree with the content contributor that the nomination has not sufficiently documented to the community the need for a community discussion. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the discussion here (with WP:NPASR), and raise the concerns are on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response As there appears to be some confusion, I will expand on my above nomination for deletion statement. The subject of the article does not appear to meet the standards for encyclopedic notability contained in the General Notability Guidelines and more specifically the notability criteria for biographies. The sources are almost entirely primary and thus do not lend themselves to establishing notability for the subject. There is little in the form of coverage from secondary or tertiary sources and certainly not enough to meet the standard of in depth coverage from reliable secondary sources. In short there is nothing exceptional about this person. He was a businessman, one of many tens of thousands, who engaged in the normal things that business people do. Although not a fatal issue, I also note that the article has an essayish tone to it. Most of these issues have been raised previously in the original PROD that was taken down in January in the hopes the article would be improved. I also attached maintenance tags which have been removed without evident correction of the problems cited. While there are many issues with articles that can be fixed, notability is not usually one of them. It's either there or it isn't. A Google has yielded nothing that rings the notability bell for this individual. I am happily prepared to reconsider the nomination if some evidence of notability is offered. But after nine months I see no reason to sit on this any longer. For now I !vote to Delete as the nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to response. Thank you for the clarification. I'm afraid that I'm rather new to Wikipedia, so I don't know all the jargon: what is a "PROD", please? and what are "maintenance tags"?

As for the substance of the question . . . The problem with secondary or tertiary sources, limited to historical publications issued in paper formats, is that they often do not reflect current thinking about a topic. This is especially true of the music industry, in which much scholarship until recently was constrained because archival collections were inaccessible unless one happened to be in the right place with the right credentials. In my view, public databases or archives (such as the Indiana and Brown online resources I cited) are the 21st-century equivalent of secondary sources like published anthologies or encyclopedias in, let's say, 1965. In fact, they're better: they offer a much more objective, quantifiable measure of importance—and hence of notability—than do historical studies written to further a particular argument and which thus (necessarily) take an editorial stance. I would suggest that if a publisher was responsible for a substantial body of significant music that is (nowadays) accessible to the public, as demonstrated in online archives, that publisher is "notable" and deserves an article. I'd also argue that if that publisher is noteworthy in part because his work contributed to the evolution of underrepresented regional or ethnic cultures in the United States, that further supports inclusion. D. W. Cooper meets both these criteria and should consequently remain in Wikipedia, it seems to me. As for an "essayish" tone, possibly that results from my inexperience. I'm very open to editorial advice; can you suggest what sentences or phrases impart this quality and how to improve them?

I've not encountered this process of proposed deletion before; as I said, I'm rather new. It all seems rather threatening and inhospitable, I must say! But your last sentence seems to indicate that some electoral body votes whether to include or remove. I would, of course, vote to include—if I'm a member of that electoral body. Presumably over the next few days others will weigh in on this matter, which at present seems to be mostly a discussion between the two of us (which I welcome, I hasten to say). There is a deadline, I believe, in a week. Could you explain (I do apologise for my ignorance, really I do!) how the voting is tallied at that point and what then happens? I don't find the wikipedia page very clear on that point. Wfbrooks (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia (belatedly). I am sorry that your article is in danger of being deleted. It isn't personal. It's just that we have to enforce certain standards since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The term PROD refers to proposed deletion. It is one of the three commonly used methods for removing articles that may not meet our standards. You can read about it here WP:PROD. The other two are speedy deletion (WP:CSD) which is not applicable here, and articles for deletion WP:AFD which is what is going on now. In an AfD discussion interested editors will take a look at the article and discuss whether or not it meets our standards, and if not, whether or not it is fixable or better to just scrap it. Again there is nothing personal about it, although it undoubtedly sucks to have an article you worked on deleted. For now I am going to suggest that you talk to an ADMIN and ask him/her to move your article from the mainspace to a sub-page of your user account or perhaps your WP:SANDBOX. This will remove the immediate threat to your article and allow you time to peruse the notability guidelines linked above and make suitable improvements at your leisure. Then, if and when you think your article is ready, you can submit it to Articles for Creation for review by experienced editors before moving it back into the mainspace. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you will agree to this course of action I will withdraw my AfD nomination in consideration of your agreeing to WP:USERFY your article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thank you for the response and the suggestion, though I'm still not very clear about the deletion process. Isn't what you suggest effectively equivalent to deleting the page and starting again from the beginning for approval? I note that on the WP:USERFY page, section 3, this point is made explicitly: "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted. Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes." It would seem that the process you suggest to resolve this matter actually accomplishes what you apparently wish to have happen.

I would also really like to have your comments on the substance of my response—that is, the matter of assessing notability using 21st-century resources rather than published secondary sources from a previous century. It seems that a potentially valuable discussion is being diverted into administrative mechanisms that neither resolve the immediate question nor allow larger issues to be debated. But perhaps there is a better forum for the latter; it seems that we two are the only ones contributing to this page, and we seem only to be going round in circles.

In any case I have left a message on the talk page for User:28bytes, who is the first administrator on the list at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active and who, coincidentally, declares an interest in music articles. Perhaps this will move things forward. I'm heavily committed for the rest of this week, however, so I will have little time to respond further until the weekend.Wfbrooks (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wfbrooks, on the article's talk page you referred to "on-line digital sheet-music repositories at Brown, Indiana, and other institutions". Are these the "21st-century resources" to which you are referring? If so, these are not sufficient by themselves to demonstrate the notability of someone (i.e. a piece of music does not tell us anything about the person who wrote it or published it). Do you have any contemporary sources that discuss Cooper and his impact on music? The article appears to reflect one person's assessment of Cooper based upon pre-1940 material. An important guideline relevant to this discussion is Wikipedia:Notability (music). - Location (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wfbrooks, not all Admins on the list are active on here. If you don't get a reply in a timely manner may I suggest dropping a line with Dougweller‎? He is quite active and I have found him to be extremely helpful with newcomers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for the information and advice. I did in fact have a timely response, and I've replied on User talk:28bytes. I think there's nothing more to add here. Wfbrooks (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, and apologies for not getting around to this - I noticed that this had been responded to but still should have noted that I saw it. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vallanattu Nagarathar Chettiar

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

Article was deleted via PROD on 3 July 2014 due to long-term lack of sourcing and vagueness. Someone has just recreated it but it is still an unsourced mess. The publications mentioned will be unreliable histories written by members of the community - we never use them because caste puffery etc is so common as to make the genre unreliable. Sitush (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have added references section and wikfied the article but still it lacks references. CutestPenguin ^discuss

Update - I have added references section and given more info about the caste detail from tamil nadu govenment web sites User:ram_arang

You have verified that a group bearing the name is recognised as existing by the government of Tamil Nadu. That is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG, which requires that there is discussion/coverage of the group. To give an analogy, if we accepted that mere existence satisfied our notability criteria then every street named in the government's directories would get an article here. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Greetings Sitush, Thanks for accepting the inputs, Shortly will add the pictures of the community center at Tiruvaramkulam and few organisation inputs in the portal , with the coverage of the people and thier culture and few refference to be added. Pls. give us some time for the same to be done User:ram_arang — Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs some TLC which is what everyone's giving it right now!, I personally see no point in deleting now that hard efforts gone into sourcing and improving the article.. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no sources present that discuss the community, merely lists that mention it as existing. That is insufficient for WP:GNG and we routinely delete articles about Indian communities that have similar failings. Deletion is without prejudice regarding recreation, if ever any decent sources emerge. One has to bear in mind that Indian communities frequently redefine themselves in a process of both fission and fusion, jostling for socio-economic position and political purpose. That is why only a 1000 or so were recorded in the early 1900s but there are now in excess of 4000. We don't have articles on every pressure group or special interest group that has ever existed and we shouldn't have them for every alleged Indian community. - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 14 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Campus in Multidisciplinary Perception and Intelligence of Albacete 2006

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

Academic conferences are routine and not inherently notable. Our best guide is WP:EVENT, which this conference fails by a mile. There is simply not enough coverage and no evidence that this conference in particular had any enduring historical impact (unlike, for example, the Dartmouth Conferences it commemorated). Lagrange 613 16:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—While I agree with the nom that most academic conferences are routine and non-notable, there are exceptions to the rule and this might be one of them. I've made a cleanup pass on the article's citations. There are three journals that did special issues; that's routine and I don't think it contributes to notability. There was also a fair amount of press coverage. That doesn't happen for routine conferences. Whether that's enough to clear the notability bar, ~~I'm not sure~~. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Ok, if I've just spent a half-hour digging up references and I don't really believe it's notable, it's not notable. Changed to delete. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, minor journals will sometimes have special issues showcasing the work from a conference, in lieu of a stand-alone conference proceedings being published. Such special issues can't count toward GNG for the conference because they are not independent of the subject: the (perceived) quality of a conference is bound up with the (perceived) quality of the research presented there. Lagrange 613 01:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dartmouth Conferences. This instance of the conferences is not notable on its own but the 50th conference is potentially worthy of mention in the series article. ~KvnG 16:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this really belongs there. This isn't part of a series that includes the Dartmouth Conferences; it's an independent gathering that decided it was commemorating them. Commemorations demonstrate the perceived influence of the Dartmouth Conferences, so maybe a brief mention (one sentence or less, along with other events that have commemorated them over the years) could be appropriate. A full merge would distract from that article's purpose. Lagrange 613 17:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution Research and Education (organization)

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

the director is notable, but there is no significant coverage of this organization. redirect to Melissa Farley, or to San Francisco Women's Centers if created. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the creator, I'm not sure where you are looking, but I have found mentions of the organization in newspapers across the U.S. and going back 10 years. The list includes the Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, Seattle Times, Honolulu Star as well as the Associated Press stories. Once I discovered this, I felt it was better to start a stub rather than just a redirect. I invite you to search again, regards. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and redirect. Essentially identical to Melissa Farley#Leadership, therefore subject to WP:A10; no independent sourcing to supports a separate article at this time. No prejudice against recreation as a properly sourced article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it has potential for further development. Lightbreather (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep but rewrite sourced entirely to primary sources. Needs to be re-written based on 3rd party sources that demonstrate notability and neutrality. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article could sure use improvement but the source coverage is out there. — Cirt (talk) 03:02, 17 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ClusterKnoppix

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

Failing GNG Mr. Guye (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I've actually used this distro and was surprised that I couldn't find any reviews. Unfortunately, this doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:42, 31 August 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 04:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Google book search actually reveals a bit of in depth discussion of the topic at hand. Whether it's really enough for notability, I'm not certain. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by significant coverage in [19] and [20]. ~KvnG 16:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@KvnG:: Nice catch on the first, but the second looks like the topic is mentioned in a single sentence. Am I reading that correctly? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are. Here's another book with a bit more coverage. Here's a review. It's a blog so not clearly reliable. ~KvnG 14:25, 22 September 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 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BN-76/7440-02

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

How in heaven's name could this be notable!? Mr. Guye (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article as well as PN-83/P-55366. These norms could be cited in an article about Polish typesetting, but they are not notable in themselves. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:27, 31 August 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 04:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I can find no sources for this besides WP and sites that mirror our content. This is not even verifiable, let alone notable. Reyk _YO! 23:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Panaretov

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

Verification search came up empty. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Wikidata (bless them) gives a pointer to the Bulgarian wiki article, which has a couple of cites. Translating the page yielded the alternate spelling "Stefan Panaretoff", with google books providing eight hits. Ah, but it looks like all that work was unnecessary. The spelling in the article turns up plenty of cites, including Pundeff, Marin (1989). "Stefan Panaretov and Bulgarian-American Relations"". Bulgarian Historical Review. 17 (3): 18–41. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:39, 31 August 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 04:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lesser Cartographies's sources; the Pundeff article is quite extensive and can be found through the WayBack Machine here: [21]. Additionally, I also found an article about Panaretoff in the New York Times [22] and I believe this satisfies WP:GNG. Altamel (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ambassadors of a country to the United States or any other major country are inherently notable. Especially the first such. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to WP:POLITICIAN, ambassadors are explicitly not counted as an international-level office that would be inherently notable; they have to pass WP:GNG on their individual merits rather than ex officio. But I believe the scholarly journal article already cited as a source, and a few mentions of him that I could find in Google books, go a long way towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Dozen

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

Political fancruft. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep possibly fancruft, but if one googles using this search string of national news sources, there are about 15 sources; there are probably more using different search sweeps, particularly using news sources in Dean's home state. Still, the article could possibly be trimmed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:01, 31 August 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 04:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable list of Democratic Party candidates endorsed by Howard Dean for election to various offices in targeted races. I follow American politics closely, and I was not aware of Dean's endorsements and organizational and financial support of Democrat candidates. The existing article does not do justice to the subject and requires some work in terms of describing the activities of Dean's program and better in-line sourcing. That having been said, my Google and Google News Archive searches revealed multiple mainstream media sources discussing the "Dean Dozen" program, as well as the individual candidates that Dean supported through the program, sufficient to support the notability of this list/article per the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. I hope a knowledgeable editor will take this on as a weekend project and significantly upgrade this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article stays I'll try to revamp it, although I'm not a particularly knowledgeable editor, although I'm a student at the greatest university in the world.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess maybe it is cruft in its current state, but it seems notable enough. It gets covered in this book, this book, and at Highbeam Research, such as here and here. I think a credible article could be written on this topic; if not, then we can have a merge discussion on the talk page later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete - open to article being recreated in the future; requires far more work than can simply be suggested in an AfD BlueSalix (talk) 05:08, 20 September 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 15:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operatica

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

Failure of NBAND. Verification search found no RS. Mr. Guye (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, and Google search reveals nothing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 14 September 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 01:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikesh S. Dattani

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

Biographical article about an individual with nine sources, all authored by the subject of the article. I can find no third-party sources that discuss this individual (other than the personal profile aggregators and research paper listings). Fails WP:BIO. Mind matrix 16:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of reliable sources to validate notability. A university instructor with 14 co-authored publications (listed in article as references) is insufficient. Canuckle (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Over 500 Google Scholar Citations. Others in the field have called her work a "landmark in diatomic spectral analysis". One of the inventors of the Morse/Long-range potential. Essentially all properties of the molecule Dilithium listed in reference tables such as in the CRC Handbook on Chemistry and Physics are values determined in her papers. Dr. Universe (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change other people's comments. If you need to provide updated information, make a separate comment stating this new information. Mind matrix 13:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only three papers with citation counts that are even in double digits in Google scholar, well below threshold for WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation subject, and no other evidence of notability is apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, single digit h-index. Also, no analysis of the person in secondary sources, a usual requirement for articles. Abductive (reasoning) 23:45, 17 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arasuri Maa Ambe

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

Non-notable film, most references are speaking about the filmmaker and not the film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's slow going, but I think I might find enough to rationalize an article for the filmmaker as opposed to this short film. Most of the coverage I'm finding for the movie is rather slim, but I am finding some articles for the director like this and this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an article in my userspace at User:Tokyogirl79/Shiv Sagar. I think that there's enough there to warrant him being in the mainspace (but I'll wait and get a bit of a consensus, though) and if all else fails with the film's article, we can always redirect to Sagar's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Another note to make: I've completely replaced every source in the article, so the sources mentioned in the rationale above are not the same as the ones currently in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. CutestPenguin ^discuss 05:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NFF. WP:INDAFD gives us results for both Arasuri Maa Ambe and Arasari Maa Ambe. As the film is completed and recieving more-than-trivial coverage, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. There is no requirement that the film has to be the sole topic of sources discussing aspects of this film, so they are allowed to speak about the filmmaker in context to what he created. WP:GNG is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Schmidt, what do you think about the director having his own page? (See my userspace copy) I'm thinking that he'd pass, but I want another set of eyes to look over the article before I move it to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your stub could be included in a section at Arasuri Maa Ambe discussing the filmmaker? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 14 September 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 02:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comindware Project

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

Was nominated for speedy as an advertisement. I declined to speedy it as it's not blatant - but it does an AfD in my opinion. I don't see an obvious case for its retention under notability. Tóraí (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review of my article!

According to general notability guideline an article is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. I totally agree that it is disputable if every of the resources I referred to in this article is reliable and independent, meanwhile I’d like to claim that at least 2 of them are reliable and independent:

TopTen Reviews. I believe they provide unbiased reviews. Please, see their third-party product reviews methodology http://www.toptenreviews.com/methodology.html
About.com. I believe the article I refer to not marked as sponsored. When according to About.com Advertising Policy (http://www.about.com/gi/pages/ethics.htm ) “All "native" ads or paid content are identified as an "Ad," "Advertisement," "Sponsored" or a similar designation indicating that the content is being provided by or on behalf of the sponsor.” So, assume content I refer to as not sponsored and worth of reference to.

81.25.36.89 (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Comindware Project is project management software that has yet to receive that level of independent, in-depth coverage requited by WP:GNG. The single in depth piece at TopTenReviews is insufficient. Basically WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above by Bejnar, only one external reference (the Top ten review) seems to have any claim at objectivity and even this is fluffy - it doesn't list any negative points and it doesn't give any indication that the reviewer actually used the software, rather than just regurgitated a list of provided features.Chandler321 (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:09, 22 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jahar Mukherjee

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

Grandfather of 2 singers and a father of a music director. Basically a not inherited issue here. (It says he is living but I don't know if that is true)-also the only link goes to his grandson. Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-And yes I know it says "well known" but for what? Can't find info either. Wgolf (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jahar Mukherjee is a lyricist from India. He is not living. You don't know about him because you are from USA and the personality is from India. See http://mio.to/show/Lyricist/Jahar+Mukherjee

AkhilKumarPal (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not well-known, not notable. He wrote songs for one album of Bengali singer Hiralal Sarkhel (primary source only). No significant sources. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NOTEBIO, fails WP:MUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been significantly updated since the nomination. The nom stated that they had the intention of withdrawing their nomination but there was a Weak Delete !vote. The weak delete had concerns over passing WP:GNG but that seems to have been alleviated per the updates from I am One of Many which the !voter said wouldn't take much to push them over GNG. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahira Barry

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

This page's references are not sufficient, and this person does not meet the requirements of notability by WP:ENT. Also, while she has been featured with some other notable people, she still lacks notability independently. WP:INHERITORG Upjav (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/comment - The previous AFD for this was only closed THREE weeks earlier. I have looked on Highbeam and found 17 articles from January 2012 through to March 2014 (so ongoing coverage) specifically about her, albeit in papers like The Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and The Daily Mail (although this does show she IS considered of ongoing interest to the lowest common denominator.) The articles are also spaced out every few months, rather than a single-event style flurry, which is evidence of ongoing coverage, and quite a few of the Mirror ones are in-depth, with over 700+ words. I think she certainly passes general notability standards although the article needs fixing up, and bearing in mind the previous AFD was closed as keep, attempts should have been made to fix before renominating so quickly. Mabalu (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highbeam doesn't include the Irish sources, of which I see another half dozen or so on a quick Google. She has certainly attracted attention as a victim of Internet bullying (I know how she feels - had the fake dating profile stunt done to me recently!) and although there is certainly a widespread school of thought that interviews are trivial and/or do not confer notability, I think the fact that such papers - with massive readership and circulation - are interviewing her (and not as part of bigger articles, but as the sole subject) is significant in itself. I had a look at WP:NMODEL and I imagine that the "has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" is the criteria here that the previous arguments were referring to. She has certainly received ongoing coverage over a sufficient length of time to show GNG. You know, I can't actually see ANYTHING anywhere actually saying interviews do or don't count. Mabalu (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't look at the date of the AfD - that was a mistake. Upjav (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I will say, though, is that the previous AfD lacked participation and developed comments regarding rationale for the keep, which had a role in my renomination. As for Shahira Barry's sources, half are Blogspot/YouTube-esque sources, and the rest are borderline notable. Much of her argued notability comes from her affiliation with Playboy and that sort of quasi-inherited notability. Upjav (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It wouldn't take much for this person to meet WP:GNG. Most of the articles on her are from the Daily Mirror, and there are a couple others... but they're almost all interviews (not secondary or independent). It's almost all gossip-type journalism or Page 3 type stuff. What's more, the article as written is pretty severely promotional, and most of the footnotes fail verification. This is a problem article that needs a lot of work. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a search on HighBeam and got 18 hits from three tabloids: The Mirror, Daily Mail, and Sunday Mercury. I agree with User:Mendaliv's analysis but I think these articles push her over the top with respect to WP:GNG. I'll try to add a few to the articles in the next few days. I am One of Many (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Boleyn, Davey2010, and Gene93k you all were involved in the last discussion of this article. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as plenty of coverage [23][24][25][26][27][28][29] - Passes NMODEL and GNG, Why on earth was this renominated THREE WEEKS later ? .... Also the nominator should read WP:BEFORE. (Thanks Mr. Guye for the heads up), –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As noted above, "oops". Upjav (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could have conceivably kept it as a speedy delete and retracted the nom because of the time in between nominations, but I'd rather not because of Mendaliv's weak delete vote. Upjav (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a number of sources, removed some unreliable sources, and fixed others. Nothing particularly impressive, but the sources are in-depth and span a couple of years, so she appears to me to be well within WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Also kudos to I am One of Many for substantial reference improvements.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 19 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Changing to Redirect following this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We All Want Love

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

Another perfect example of CFORK and again another song article which fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. There is absolutely no independent third party coverage except minor mentions in album reviews and those taken from the album's own liner notes. Minor chart placement and no live performances either. This should be deleted or best, redirected to parent album, Talk That Talk. The song being listed as a GA has no qualms on its status as an independent article. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Talk That Talk insufficient coverage from secondary sources to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As before, minor charting has no bearing. If a song charted, no matter where or how good, it's fine. No live performances isn't a reason for deletion either. This song has quite a bit of coverage for a non-single. — ₳aron 21:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to burst your bubble, Calvin, but charts/live performances are moot when most if not all secondary sources covering the song are album reviews. WP:NSONGS specifically states that articles should not be made for songs with no third-party coverage outside of album reviews. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances isn't mentioned anywhere in the criterion that you are going by. It has no impact. Charting is charting, no matter how good or bad. So obvious what is going on here. — ₳aron 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that charts are not automatic indicators of notability, regardless of chart positions, particularly when source(s) for the chart positions only mention the track itself briefly. The most crucial aspects are having multiple secondary sources giving coverage independent of the album, and having enough information on the track itself to expand beyond a stub. It is true that the notability criteria for songs says nothing about live performances, but it does state that album review coverage isn't enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to highlight in this criterion, "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." That would imply that even live performance would not indicate its notability fully. Also Calvin, can you explain how this almost start class article is valid as a separate article when all of its content can be easily present and merged to Talk That Talk? CFORK is also a bigger question that you need to address. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's what you are interpreting it to say. As Snuggums agreed, live performances is not mentioned anywhere. Because it's too long to include on the album article for a sub section. — ₳aron 08:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not interpreting anything. You are failing to explain how this song is notable, except saying that it is too long to be included in TTT. That is not a valid reason for creating a separate article which does not pass NSONGS. There is no content in this article that is not present/cannot be included in the parent album article, and that does not include the passing mentions in album review. I'm explaining to you how the mere live performance of a song also does not make it notable, and that does not necessarily mean for this song. Also, these weird statements like charting is charting again does not bode well for discussion. What do you mean by that? The charts are not an indicator for GNG or NSONGS. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make you see the comparison, "Cold Case Love" is not nominated for deletion because i has independent third party notability about the song. Multiple references indicate the triggering factor here, inspite of the song not charting. This is a case where NSONGS pass. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, you don't need to spell it out. But no matter how much you dress it up, Cold Case Love has all of it's composition/critical reception made up from album reviews. — ₳aron 13:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of spelling anything out for you, but CCL has its background and much of its composition from independent third party sources. But thats WP:WAX lets concentrate on this one. I was merely pointing out a comparison trying to answer your question. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect or delete. These very minor chart appearances do not confer notability. The article feels very empty, taking a lot of words to say very little- there's nothing in this article which could not be briefly covered in the album article. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge and redirect to article for parent album. Chart peaks alone do not establish notability, and as stated explicitly in the notability guidelines the subject in question must be covered by reliable, third-party sources outside of album reviews. The most informative details of this article could easily be merged into the Talk That Talk article. Holiday56 (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a WP:good article that you have nominated here. Are you sure? -Mr. Guye (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're sure this doesn't warrant a separate article. It actually shouldn't have been promoted to begin with due to lack of notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:59, 14 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 NHL hat tricks

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

Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. See the discussion for a similar deleted article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 NHL hat tricks. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass delete all of them back to 1988–89 NHL hat tricks and 1987-88 NHL Hat Tricks (oddball capitalization) per prior Afd judgment. Plus any redirects like 1988-89 NHL Hat Tricks. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are identical except for the year:

Tchaliburton (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per my comment in the 2013-14 AFD. Reso lute 19:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. Deadman137 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kitbuilders

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Mr. Guye (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Reviews include Allmusic [30], XLR8R [31], The Wire [32] (snippet view), and Groove [33] (German). I suspect there are more in German, but as it stands I think these write-ups, brief as they are for the most part, suggest enough notability to get over the hump. Gongshow talk 19:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 14 September 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 Spike and Suzy. Without prejudice to the editorially appropriate merger of any material into the target j⚛e decker ^talk 15:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Barabas

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

Unremarkable fictional character. Mr. Guye (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This person is a minor comic book character who already has an overview on the comic's Wikipedia page (Spike and Suzy. Considering even the titular characters do not have their own pages, this certainly does not hold as a standalone article. However, it would be good to have Professor Barabas redirect to the list of main characters on the page for Spike and Suzy. Upjav (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete this one. JamboGhana (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Spike and Suzy, as per Upjav's comment. --Delirium (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 14 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Argentina

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

Series of non notable national beauty pageants. I am not nominating the international main pageant, which seems to have some notability, but having checked a few of the national ones, I see no individual notability for things like Miss Grand Nepal [34] or Miss Grand Argentina [35] or Miss Grand Kosovo [36] or even Miss Grand UK [37]. Fram (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all We don't have "Find sources" templates and Template:la (link article) for 25 of the 26 articles listed. As for evidence of non-notability, the nomination stipulates to only "having checked a few", and there is no evidence of WP:BEFORE D1 for the four titles mentioned. The nomination needs to have analyzed the alternatives to deletion, as it is given that there is a wp:notable international main pageant, and it is certainly not obvious why these topics should be deleted and can't be merged. The simple rule is: if there is no one willing to do the work to prepare the community for a deletion discussion, there is no need for a deletion discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be a list of some of the most unconvincing keep reasons ever. Keep because you don't get the automatic "find sources" template? Really? And D1? Do you want me to perform a Google Books search for these? You are aware that Google Books results appear in regular Google as well? Bloating the nomination with things like 0 results and 0 results? Of course, there isn't even one book source about the international competition[38], so expecting them for the national qualifications is a bit optimistic. Please treat WP:BEFORE with some common sense and not as gospel. Merging these is useless, I suppose you mean redirecting as there is nothing worth merging anyway. Lower level competitions don't get kept because the top-level competition is notable, so why should this be any different? Fram (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as per nomination. Did not meet the general notability guideline--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all a beauty pageant of the scale of Miss Grand (country) is notable. Passes WP:NEVENT. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence for this? Empty claims of "is notable" without providing any sources to back them up normally get ignored by the closing admin. Fram (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above you object to the due process protections that require nominations to include evidence of a lack of sources, but here you want evidence and assert that closing admins will require such. Are you claiming that closing admins treat keep !votes with standards unlike those that apply to delete nominations? Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide evidence, I objected to your burocratic statement that "we don't have the find sources templates for all of them". Having a template added to every nominated article would be no evidence of anything (positive or negative), but rejecting a nomination for such a reason is kindergarten behaviour. And in any case, I can't prove that there are no sources or notability, I can only state that I looked and didn't find the required evidence of notability, and I have given sufficient examples of where and how I looked. But the opposite, claims that the pageants are notable, should be shown with evidence. That's standard AfD behaviour, yes. When someone claims it meets NEVENT, then they should provide some pointers to the coverage required in NEVENT. Fram (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The individual country events don't seem to have generated enough attention from reliable third parties. Lets keep the main pageant page for the time being and delete the rest. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:43, 23 September 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homan's Rock

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

A rock with a name inscribed. Not a monument, not remembering anything of importance. Quite baffling that this has been created actually. Fram (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On a point of order, this is about one of 3 related articles separately nominated for AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powder River Telegraph Station and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leopold Hohman. Can this be closed and one unified multiple AFD discussion be held? --do ncr am 17:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The three articles, Powder_River_Telegraph_Station, Leopold Hohman and Homan's Rock should be merged into a single article for the Telegraph Station. There is no need to have three articles about this one topic. Then, more references need to be added. LaMona (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:walled garden per nom. Three zeros don't add up to anything other than zero (as in notability). Or we could redirect to Rachel Homan whenever she has the hammer. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't sound odd at all. It appears to be a landmark in Montana, as are a number of other inscribed rocks in the United States west (e.g. Initial Rock in North Dakota for one), and I believe that there will exist numerous mentions in historic, off-line sources. It is a place, like a GNIS location, and a short article identifying it is highly appropriate. Or, it could be redirected / merged to Leopold Hohman#Homan's Rock. This AFD should have been opened as part of a multiple-AFD, so perhaps this should be closed procedurally in favor of a multiple one. --do ncr am 17:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is there any official recognition of this rock? Initial Rock being on the NRHP elevates it to article-worthiness. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A "landmark" without any sources about it? That's not a landmark, that's a non notable rock. And no, when you have three items with different possible notability (e.g. the telegraph station could have turned out to be notable, that wouldn't mean that this rock was notable), then three AfDs is better. Fram (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Should it be notable? Maybe, but probably not. We're not here to make that call. - Richfife (talk) 17:29, 23 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Business excellence

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

This article has been unsourced for around six years and is written in a subjective, essayish style. If there is an article to be written on this topic, it is clear that this is not it. I do not believe that this is a fit subject for an encyclopedia, any more than "sporting exellence" or "adequacy at teaching" would be, and my searches for sourcing for this topic bears that out. Reyk _YO! 06:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that "business excellence" is not a named thing, and therefore not suitable for WP. There is a full article on Malcolm_Baldrige_National_Quality_Award, so the removal of this article has no effect on that information. The other methodology mentioned here, EFQM has a poorly-sourced article that links to this one via "business excellence" and has problems of WP:SPA and WP:COI. That is unfortunate because the article is about a European non-profit that promotes business and seems to have a reasonably long history that may be worthy of an article. I would say to leave that article in place in with its "multiple issues" banner and hope that it is improved. LaMona (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Several sources from google scholar, searching for <"business excellence" + Deming>

Kanji, Gopal K. (1998). "Measurement of business excellence". Total Quality Management. 9 (7): 633–643. doi:10.1080/0954412988325. (cited 212 times)
Porter, Les; Tanner, Steve, eds. (2004). Assessing Business Excellence (2nd ed.). Elsevier. ISBN 0750655178. (cited 231 times)
Kanji, Gopal K. (2002). Measuring Business Excellence. Routledge. ISBN 0203996739. (cited 103 times)
Ritchie, L.; Dale, B.G (20 July 2000). "Self-assessment using the business excellence model: A study of practice and process". International Journal of Production Economics. 66 (3): 241–254. doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(99)00130-9. (cited 104 times)
McAdam, Rodney; Kelly, Michael. "A business excellence approach to generic benchmarking in SMEs". Benchmarking: An International Journal. 9 (1): 7–27. (cited 89 times)

While the generic term is certainly in use, the article refers to a specific academic model which has been received in-depth coverage in both the peer-reviewed and popular literature. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, as detailed above. The complaint that the page "written in a subjective, essayish style" does not stand up as the style seems fairly bland and dispassionate. In any case, such stylistic considerations and other flaws are best addressed by ordinary editing per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mostly unsourced (WP:V, WP:OR). No indication of sources that make this particular model or idea notable. The term is so generic that there are guaranteed to be sources that use or define it in some way, but that doesn't mean we can write a coherent article about it. This one reads like meaningless buzzword salad to me. Sandstein 18:05, 22 September 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! 16:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kledo Creek Provincial Park

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

This is not a provincial park. The BC Parks website has no information about this park and no other sources other than a book from 1987 support this park's existence. According to direct correspondence with BC Parks staff, this 6 hectare area was repealed in 2006. I'm not sure this area is notable enough to have its own page stating that it is a former park. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like the nominator, I looked and found no substantive references online. The only existing references appeared to be entries that flagged the Wikipedia entry.--Rpclod (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC). Re-direct to List_of_British_Columbia_Provincial_Parks#Former_Provincial_Parks as suggested by doncram (content may have already merged).--Rpclod (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussion here and the associated article history. Former provincial and state parks are considered notable for the purposes of the encyclopedia, and based on the comments above this area did exist as a provincial park at some point.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if references can be found. Notability is not temporary. 117Avenue (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking WP:NTEMP out of context. WP:NTEMP means that if something is only "notable" for a short period of time, then it is not "notable" for purposes of WP:GNG. That same section states: "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion". Regarding the other comment, I find no guideline that "Former provincial and state parks are considered notable for the purposes of the encyclopedia". Instead, guidelines advise that the fact that other articles similar to the one in question exist is not an indicator of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. What I meant was we don't delete article when their subject no longer exists. 117Avenue (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, otherwise coverage of presidents and popes would be minimal.--Rpclod (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (revised from Merge, revised from Keep). I revised the article slightly. There are in fact some former parks and many other former places having articles; see Category:Former parks and open spaces of London‎ and Category:Former places, which I believe includes many many many former buildings and structures, too. I think a former BC provincial park is likely unusual. Provincial or state or national parks are treated best like high schools, where we assume notability and it is not worth debating whether current sources are entirely satisfactory. For this park, there must have been legislation or other actions justifying a proposal, then creating the park and then eventually there must have been reasons to de-park it, say if it was destroyed environmentally and then deemed non-park-worthy. Perhaps it was renamed or subsumed into another park, in which case a redirect might be appropriate when it is sorted out. Whatever the story, it is surely documented somewhere (although apparently not on in sources easily found on the internet). Offline sources are fine. Keep this, like we automatically keep high schools. --do ncr am 02:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: "Kledo Creek Park" is identified in Google maps and other map services. You can see it right on the Alaska Highway, 54.2 km west of Fort Nelson, British Columbia. The park exists. The article should perhaps be moved from "Kledo Creek Provincial Park" to "Kledo Creek Park', but that is for anyone to simply move, or could be discussed at the Talk page; it is not an AFD issue. --do ncr am 03:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be redirected to, say, List of British Columbia Provincial Parks#Former Provincial Parks where i have already gone ahead and put some information about this former park. --do ncr am 21:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not opposed to keeping this article. However, as it stands I am concerned that a UHaul guidebook and a bike route map are inadequate sources, and everything else online exists because it flagged this Wikipedia article. I directly contacted BC Parks (the management agency for provincial parks in British Columbia) about this park and received this response: "This 6 hectare area is no longer a provincial park. It was repealed in 2006, but the location is along highway 97, approx half way between Stone Mountain Park and Fort Nelson in the Peace River Land District." So based on this personal communication (which cannot be cited on Wikipedia), it appears this park was deemed non-park-worthy. The location that appears as Kledo Creek Park appears to be correct, but I have no idea where this name came from or if it is still a park in any form. I tried to check the history of the object in Google Map Maker, but found nothing more than that the area had been deleted and probably shouldn't be showing up on the map. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the bill that repealed the park [39] with some additional detail here. It appears that the park was originally called "Kledo Creek Park" (without "provincial"). At most this is a former park, and not a park at present. The Street View imagery shows no entrance to the where the park should be, and definitely no campground as the guidebook states. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't have access to any Canadian historical newspaper literature service, which I am guessing would probably provide coverage of the park's creation and/or de-registration. In an academic database, I find a couple articles studying spruce budworm deforestation that study the Kledo Creek area as well as other parts of Fort Nelson Forest District. There's a map from Fort Nelson west along the 97 that shows maximum impact of deforestation that runs through the Kledo Creek Park. Major deforestations happened in 1955, in 1990, and various other years, and there are big implications apparently for forest management. So this is speculation, but perhaps the forest there was destroyed by bugs and/or logging, and then it was de-parked?

^[1] ^[2]

^ Rene I. Alfaro; S. Taylor; R.G. Brown; J.S. Clowater (2001). "Susceptibility of northern British Columbia forests to spruce budworm defoliation". No. 145. Forest Ecology and Management. p. 181-190.
^ J.S. Burleigha; R.I. Alfarob; J.H. Bordena; S. Taylorc (2002). "Historical and spatial characteristics of spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) outbreaks in northeastern British Columbia". Forest Ecology and Management. No. 168. pp. 301–309.

Still, whatever the story, i think it should be covered more when someone can get the sources, and I think the article should be kept. thanks --do ncr am 03:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I grant that it does seem to be a former campground. Using Google street view, i can find my way to entrance and sign for another campground, Tetsa River Provincial Park, with entrance sign visible here in Google street view, but mostly like Fredlyfish4 says, there seems to be no entrance sign to a campground at Kledo Creek from Google street view. Here however is the entrance, unmarked, just a hundred meters or so past crossing of Kledo Creek (which is marked). So my guess now is that it is federal or province land, and on a river and adjacent to the 97 highway, but otherwise not greatly different than other land around. Still, once a park, like a high school, then best just to keep it, documenting it very simply as a former park, and it is as best we can tell still a "place", and potentially where some will want to stop to go fish or to picnic or to camp even if it is not an official campground. Actually providing this info is a small service to readers who can potentially be looking for it, coming from the Google map mention or other mentions, on the level of a redirect or a disambiguation page but just a bit better, and no big deal. --do ncr am 12:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I revised my !vote to merge (then to redirect), above. It could be redirected to a "Former parks" section in List of British Columbia Provincial Parks. I opened discussion about adding that section, at Talk:List of British Columbia Provincial Parks. Likewise for other not-very-notable current BC parks that have articles, those could be redirected to the List-article. I think the proper close is "Merge" rather than "Redirect" here, as technically we would merge the small amount of info available about this park, e.g. the sources about the law de-commissioning the park, to the list-article. --do ncr am 20:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Given the above discussions, and as the nominator of this article for deletion, I now support redirecting and merging this and other similar former parks to the list of BC parks. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Barkerville and Sudenten (former) parks have similar articles and likewise should be redirected and merged, as they were repealed in the same legislation as this park. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, thanks, then that means there are no remaining "delete" voters and this could be closed. I agree about those other former parks, those could be treated the same, being sure to use the source in adding mention to the Former Provincial Parks section, and redirecting, and AFDs are not necessary. Thanks for your attention to this! --do ncr am 02:27, 21 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristóbal Cobo

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)

No sense of any real notability. Passing reference to a Professorship is not sourced and may be a an Affiliate Professor Status in an American University. Currently a research fellow which doesn't carry with it inherent notability. No evidence that he is especially notable in any field . Fails WP:BIO Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—h-index of ~12, which is well under what I would expect for WP:ACADEMIC. The TEDx talk was a minor one. Not seeing a clear path to notability yet. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets the general notability guideline, including publication of his bio and ideas in important publications such as the main digital magazine of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. The guidelines for professors include 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The introduction of the concept of invisible learning is a significant contribution to educational technology, which is why is is in demand currently in talks in universities in various parts of the world.Thelmadatter (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meets #4 as well The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Thelmadatter (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the University of Oxford, research fellow is equivalent to Assistant Professor in an American university.

Comment - the article gives no evidence that the Professorship is at a USA University - more probably Mexico or South America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you clarify where Wikipedia indicates as requisite a Professorship at a USA University? Does it mean that only academics from USA are the only valid academics? Could you be more specific? Records indicate an associateship of this person with in a research centre of the University of Oxford (The Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance).--6kenilworth (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC) — 6kenilworth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The other way round. A full Professor in countries where a professorship is a very senior position with responsibility for a substantial department as well as being the academic lead as in the UK , has been deemed by custom and practice to be intrinsically notable. In many other countries the title Professor is used for roles that might elsewhere be called senior lecturers. The lack of a role as a Professor does not mean that the person is not notable, only that there needs to be robust and reliable references to demonstrate their notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think Velella is right. Is not only the professorship what really counts. I made a little research and I found that Cobo's work on Technology and Education has been published in nearly 20 newspapers/magazines (i.e. Le Monde Diplomatique); but with main concentration in the Spanish speaking world: El País (Spain); El Clarín (Argentina); La Crónica (México), El Mercurio (Chile), etc. (references available) If included I think that need to be added. Having a closer look at his profile I think Thelmadatter is also right when suggested that 'The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education' his record of work with a large number of Higher Education institutions is evident.Stgiles1 (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Stgiles1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I think that Thelmadatter is right. In the Spanish speaking world, Cobo is an important figure in educational innovation, which is why he is in demand as a consultant for the governments of various countries such as Ecuador, Mexico and Chile. His H-index is 9 which is high in the social sciences, especially in such a narrow field. [[40]]--Paolaricaurte (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Paolaricaurte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clearly Thelmadatter is pointing out something easy to prove. Cobo's influence on the academic world is clear. His works on Invisible Learning and other ideas in open education had reached pretty much every corner of the spanish speaking academic world (plus other regions). Here some evidences of that: Universidad Europea (Spain); Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; Universidad Nacional de Villa María (Argentina); Fundació Jaume Bofill and Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Spain); Universidad Santo Tomás (Chile); Instituto Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico); Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos; Universidad Tecnica Particular de Loja (Ecuador); Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (Ecuador); Ministerio Coordinador de Conocimiento y Talento Humano (Ecuador); Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla (Mexico); Chilean Ministry of Education; The London School of Economics (UK); Mexican Network of National Education (RIESA in Mexico); Universidad de Granada (Spain); Colegio Montserrat (Spain): Junta de Andalucía - Consejería de Innovación, Ciencia y Empresa (Spain); Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (Kazakhstan); Colegio Alcantara (Chile); IB Africa, Europe and Middle East (IBAEM) (The Netherlands); European Distance E-Learning Network (EU); etc, etc. --Washington14 (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC) — Washington14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 14 September 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.

Armenian soap operas

WP:OR. There is no such a genre as Armenian soap operas, there is only soap operas that produced in Armenia, USA and so on. Maybe list or category, but this article summarizes the different soap operas under one title and critiqued.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tu Reinas (Diante do Trono album)

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

Future release that currently does not meet nor does it claim to meet any notability guidelines (WP:NALBUMS). All self-published sources except the one sales source. It may be notable after it's released. See WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale, failed to assert the subject's notability. The Portuguese article doesn't help much, it is much bigger, but most of the sources are also self-published. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 05:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mantain Each time i give a paced in the wiki i see absurds. The article is sent to the PE and the editors are not reported. Slapstick. * Maintain since criteria WP:NALBUM indicate no need for secondary sources. The second criterion is clear when he says that if the creator of the work is remarkable, so too will the work, then it is able to be maintained. But for all purposes include other sources in the article. See WP:TOOSOON. --177.138.181.149 (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what WP:NALBUM says is "that an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article". Victão Lopes ^Fala! 23:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:10, 14 September 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 (G5). Huon (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carnall

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

All of the bluelinks are redirects, all but one of them go to pages that don't even mention "Carnall" in their titles, and the one exception isn't even spelled the same way as the page title, so this isn't a useful dab page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All of the entries satisfy WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL. older ≠ wiser 19:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this AfD turns out to be no longer necessary. A CheckUser has discovered that it was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so it will be speedily deleted under G5. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:07, 15 September 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. Asserting inherant notability when the GNG well is dry doesn't wash policy wise Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khalaf Ahmed

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in the AFC Champions League, the highest cup competition in Asian football. Meets the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving to meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought that only applied when the player concerned was part of a team that played in an FPL, but had not played in the league, merely against a team from another FPL in the proper part of a continental competition? As the Kuwait League is not an FPL not sure how this fulfills NFOOTY spirit. Also, can you point to where he played, I can only find reference to his brother and he doesn't seem to be in the current squad for Al-Arabi as far as I can see. Admittedly there is probably stuff in arabic, but I am struggling to find anything in English even on stat sites about this player. Fenix down (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in the AFC Champions League as well as winning six cups in his career would suggest he meets WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What coverage? Where? The link in the article is dead as are the ones to the match reports in the AFC Champions League article. Also match reports as WP:ROUTINE coverage do not convey notability as they are, by definition not about any particular player. Can you find any links to interview, reports on the player's career / private life? I am struggling. Additionally, with only 48 appearances according to the article in 8 years I would suggest his involvement in any trophy wins was minimal, aside from the fact that those "wins" are wholly unsourced. Fenix down (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 14 September 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 02:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Gomez

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

The article does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC Fevrret (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You nominated this an hour after it was created .... The creator seems to be trying to get the hang of editing here so you should've Assumed Good Faith and kept tabs on it & nominated it like 24 hours later if needed ..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep exactly verbatim as User:Davey2010. This is why we have tags, please do not make any further AFDs of any articles where you have not followed the procedure recommended by Davey2010. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty sure 24 hours have passed by now-- this is a speculative biography, probably created as a means for self-promotion. The article says this person has an album coming out in "2014 or 2015". Coverage is lacking on this subject and it doesn't appear to meet any guideline for encyclopedic notability, hence my suggestion to delete. Silverfish8088 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly does not meet WP:MUSICBIO in any way. STATic message me! 18:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First EP yet to come. This is a TOOSOON case. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Why should I have a User Name?. SBaker43 (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find anything after searching. Problem is, Diana Gomez is a relatively common name, so filtering out the other Dianas can be time-consuming. If it is a case of WP:TOOSOON then maybe a year or so later she'll be back in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:54, 19 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ClickTheCity.com

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

advertising The Banner talk 16:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 17:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. This article is just a soapbox. Anyone can see that. EMachine03 (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP doesn't need an article for every entertainment directory. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already toned down its promotional content. This is the Timeout.com and Fandango.com of the Philippines and there is no question as to its notability.1 2 3 4--RioHondo (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The advertising problems have been watered down by @RioHondo . EMachine03 (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:00, 14 September 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 02:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Khoshbin

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

There has been repeated removals and restoring the section on the accident over the last few months. Personally I was about to delete that section under BLP and say so, as I think it an excellent example of one of the basic considerations of our BLP policy; but then I started wondering if there was any actual notability in the first place.

The book is not notable, nor the TV appearances nor the business career, so I don;t see what else is there to justify an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to DGG: Nothing. Therefore it is a Delete in my opinion. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on Scholar or JSTOR; Books appear to be advertising or promotional.SBaker43 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Addison (engineer)

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

WP:BLP of a structural engineer, which basically just asserts his existence without offering any substantive reason why an encyclopedia needs to document his existence — and while it's not completely unsourced, one of its two sources is a primary one (and a deadlink at that). I'm assuming, based on the timing of this article's creation, that his participation in a BBC investigation of the Statutory Repairs, Edinburgh scandal is why the article was created — but that claim in and of itself doesn't justify a standalone BLP that's this poorly sourced, when merely mentioning his name in the main article on the scandal, without linking it to a separate BLP1E, serves the exact same purpose. Delete, or redirect to Statutory Repairs, Edinburgh. Bearcat (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Magaziner

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

Yet another WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is his candidacy in a party primary for an upcoming election. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot adequately demonstrate that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before they became a candidate, then they must win the election, not merely run in it, to qualify. And I mean the general election, not just the primary. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but he's not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:POLITICIAN I think Seth qualifies as a major local political figure with significant press coverage. The RI treasurer is a surprisingly powerful position which has launched the incumbent into the national spotlight (probably more significant than governor last term). This race is a battle between a scion of a national democratic family and a very RI political family. Lots of TV coverage, though our pathetic local paper doesn't generate a lot of primary source material. While article is clearly initiated by the person or his campaign it sticks to the facts. No personal connection, just a voter the day before the primary researching candidates.Jes1974 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's just won the Democratic primary for Treasurer. The coverage he'll get will increase and because of the state's strong Democratic lean, he's almost certain to win the general election. Tiller54 (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions, per WP:CRYSTAL. If you cannot adequately demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough to have an article before he was a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election, regardless of how "likely" anybody thinks his victory is or isn't. There have been many elections over the years in which the candidate who appeared "likely" or "certain" to win actually lost, for one reason or another; there have been some elections in which the candidate died before election day; and there have been many elections in which the question of which candidate was likelier to win depended on which pundits you chose to believe. I'd have no objection to sandboxing this for future retrieval, if his victory's really that likely — but advance predictions about the likelihood of his eventual victory have no bearing on our inclusion rules, because advance predictions don't always pan out accurately. Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he doesn't win, I'm confident that there's enough coverage in reliable sources found in the article and after a cursory search to pass WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Tiller54 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a longstanding principle of AFD that except in extremely rare circumstances on the order of the international media firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell, coverage of a candidate's campaign itself does not contribute to whether the candidate gets over WP:GNG or not. Local media have an obligation to cover local elections, so campaign coverage is not a thing that some candidates get and others don't — all candidates always get media coverage, so our policy of not allowing unelected candidates to have articles would be completely nullified and we'd have to keep every article about every unelected candidate in every election. Rather, campaign-related coverage falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:ROUTINE — short of an O'Donnell scenario, if the candidate didn't already meet an inclusion rule before they became a candidate, then coverage of the campaign itself cannot boost their encyclopedic notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank DiPaolo

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

Biography of a person notable only as a political assistant and "doorkeeper", with no substantive claim of notability that would actually get him past WP:NPOL and not nearly enough sourcing to put him over WP:GNG either. I'm sure he was a nice man, but nothing here is a reason why he would warrant an encyclopedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Well the guy lived a VERY long time-maybe a redirect to the longest living Americans? (Now I want to see a film called the door keeper upon reading this lol)-but yeah I do have to admit how long he lives is pretty cool. Wgolf (talk) 00:56, 15 September 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 02:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wil Emling

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

Puffed-up autobiography of a person whose claim to fame is that he once acted as a proxy bidder in a notable art auction. He was quoted in the press because of this one incident, but still misses notability standards by a longshtot. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobiography of a non-notable person. The only reliable, third-party sources that could even come close to showing notability are for a single event where he was quoted as a participant in an auction. As per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Perhaps Emling will be notable in the future, but nothing posted (repeatedly) by Emling has shown notability now.Stesmo (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete no achievements for notability to judge from. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete. WP:ONEEVENT at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:28, 18 September 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 Zero Tolerance (magazine). j⚛e decker ^talk 02:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calum Harvie

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

Can't find anything that makes him notable to be on here-and on a interesting note, the ONLY update since 2007 was a bot clean up in 2013. Wgolf (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Zero Tolerance (magazine). An article isn't justified here but may be worth a redirect to the magazine he edited. --Michig (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as suggested above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:53, 14 September 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 02:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Media Art Software

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

rather indiscriminate list of items that possibly can be used for media art and other forms of computer art. Very loosely defined and very loosely applied. In the present form, you can put almost everything in the list. Lacks also sources, so seems a bit WP:OR. The Banner talk 03:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't work as a list article as the criteria for inclusion are too vague. --Michig (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; too unfocused/vague to be meaningful, and the end result is OR. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 18 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fairheads Benefit Services

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

Fails WP:ORG. Notability seems to rest in fact they are market leading and first to obtain a 13B license, both of which I don't believe are notable. Plenty of sources, but most are blogs (non notable), with most being marketing skits. scope_creep 11:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom Gbawden (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 14 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SourceFed hosts

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

Fancruft article made in good faith, but is redundant. The content is just a copy and paste of other biographical articles. Everything else not notable because it is either unsourced, or sourced to a primary source. E.g. Reddit user page, youtube videos, subjects own website etc. Could be seen to resemble a type of Wikipedia:Coatrack. I would suggest a category, but it would be too small to be worthwhile. So Delete. Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note/Keep

Probably going to add to this note later, but for now I have to ask... "really?"

E.g. Reddit user page, youtube videos, subjects own website etc.

So 1 Reddit user page, 3 youtube videos (+1 other YT link), subjects own website (so 1 Tumblr user page, and 1 link to Elliott's website) is just supposed to be the basis for deletion? Those references, along with 1 SourceFed ref, and 2 Revision3 references, add up to 10. So I'm guessing the other 32 just don't count? Even though they're from sources such as Forbes, Tubefilter, Huffington Post, the CEA Blog, IGN, and PBS? In regards to the other 10 references, I'm almost entirely sure that the usage of those references do not directly violate WP:USINGSPS. All 42 references combine to establish the notability of this article. I feel like other points could be corrected, which could lead to portions of the article being reworded or rewritten but it shouldn't be deleted. Soulbust (talk)

SF, R3, cea, IGN, PBS are all primary sources, they all worked together in an official capacity. You haven't explained why it's not redundant. None of the sources discuss the subjects as a group, and even then only some are actually about the subjects being hosts in the show. So you've just made a list of biographies. Using every possible primary source doesn't make it notable.--Otterathome (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already agreed that SF and R3 are primary sources. Either way, it still has Huff Post, Forbes and Tubefilter refs, along with other references. The article is not just a copy+paste of other articles. For those hosts that already have their own articles, it includes information in a condensed form, and includes links to their own articles. For those hosts who do not have their own articles, it includes information on them too, in a similarly condensed form. It does speak about the hosts as a group, and if you believe it doesn't, you could always offer advice on how to form a section in the article that speaks about them as a group, or do it yourself. I'm working on one currently. Soulbust (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, primary sources are not disallowed on wikipedia. This article also includes a solid amount non-primary sources, so I still do not know how this article can be deleted on those grounds. Soulbust (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of .NET Framework versions

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

Article violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG because it entirely consists of a list of releases and dates, irrelevant of their significance and due weight. A shorter policy-compliant list is already available in the main article. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't this be redirected to the list in the main article? Why can't this be transwikied to wikidata or wikiversity? James500 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly can. "Redirect" is a slightly different form of "Delete", whereby a redirect is left behind after deletion. It can also be transwikied; but not to Wikidata or Wikiversity. (Wikidata's nature does not support this anyway.) However, if you mean merged instead of redirected, no, thanks to WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Forcing readers to read such a list is cruel anyway. (I still have occasional nightmares about those stupid tables we have to memorize in school, only to forget them after the exam.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant exactly what I said. If I had meant to use the word "merge", I would have done so. Wikiversity will accept almost anything that is outside the scope of the other projects. In what way would this conflict with Wikiversity's content policies? James500 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great. I love people who are careful about choosing their words. I wish there were more people like. The majority of people so far care-freely used "redirect" to mean "merge and redirect" and "notability" to mean "fame", "due weight" or lots of other thing. I certainly didn't say meant policy conflict; only Software Wiki seems a more appropriate target and Wikiversity like the least suitable target. (Refer to the nightmare part of my last message.) But please, suit yourself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Software Wiki is not a WMF project, so we will not send the content there. As far as transwiki is concerned, Wikiversity is probably the only candidate. Redirection is not normally preceded by page deletion. The content would be preserved in the page history because NOTCHANGELOG isn't a grounds for revision deletion. The reason for this is probably that we don't like to delete information that we might conceivably want to use later (WP:R and WP:PRESERVE). The mere existence of a list doesn't force anyone to read it and cruelty to readers isn't a grounds for deletion or anything else. James500 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Summary in .NET_Framework#History appears adequate and in line with WP:NOTCHANGELOG guidance. This more detailed coverage is problematic. Maybe some of the refs can be used in .NET_Framework#History but a full merge is not really appropriate. ~KvnG 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a clear example of a changelog and worse, is redundant with a lot of the information already presented in .NET Framework version history. I don't see much of value to merge into .NET Framework version history, maybe some refs? In principle a redirect is fine, but I don't think List of .NET Framework versions is a particularly likely search term. --Mark viking (talk) 18:32, 14 September 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 hypocholesterolemia. if this is a fork we usually redirect/merge and it could be search term neo or not. History retained so anyone can do the necessary smerge Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iatrogenic hypocholesterolemia

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

The term "iatrogenic hyopcholesterolemia" does not appear in PubMed.
The reason given for creationg the article at Talk:Iatrogenic hypocholesterolemia is "censorship".
It seems to be a duplicate of Cholesterol depletion.

Additionally,

Related discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cholesterol Depletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mevalonate inhibition

BiologicalMe (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where is it discussed now? Richiez (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood the question correctly, the answer is "Here." The other discussions are closed.BiologicalMe (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all pages into hypocholesterolemia possibly under a separate section. "Iatrogenic hypocholesterolemia" basically is a clone of "Cholesterol depletion" under a different title. The consensus from the "cholesterol depletion" AfD seems to have been to merge it into another page. --Gccwang (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all pages into a section of hypocholesterolemia. Iatrogenic hypocholesterolemia is a neologism not used in the medical literature; I didn't find any hits in PubMed or GScholar. After merge, I don't see a compelling reason for a redirect, but for the sake of consensus, it would be fine by me. --Mark viking (talk) 18:40, 14 September 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 02:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Based Education

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

Unreferenced and biased article about a NN methodology NickGibson3900 ^Talk ^{Sign my Guestbook} ^{Contributions} 07:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and as spam. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearian and NickGibson3900. I searched numerous databases did not find anything; even a search such as this minimal one without any news filters yielded barely 2 SERP pages, with nothing notable on either.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:59, 17 September 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 02:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VidCruiter

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

Fails WP:CORP. No substantial coverage of the company exists as far as I can tell. WP:GHITS has it's problems, but when there are only 8000 for a tech company it's very unlikely to be notable. Created by undisclosed paid editors. SmartSE (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vid Cruiter. I searched for the company name with the space but this didn't make any difference to my conclusion. SmartSE (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is simply to thin to satisfy WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:40, 30 August 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 21:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:27, 15 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Stones

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

Seems to fail WP:RS, and indeed WP:V. Article has existed since 2007. The "Cat Stones" is the name for some boulders on Rishworth moor in West Yorkshire (geograph photo). However, I've been unable to find evidence for the remaining content on this page. I've Google-searched the three sites given in the "references" and they seem to contain nothing on these "cat stones". I can't find a single book or webpage which verifies that these boulders have anything to do with barrows or burial chambers. Pasicles (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't tell if this entry passes or fails WP:NGEOG because NGEOG is so poorly written. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~(possibly userify)~~ -- At best this is a minor archaeological site. The three alleged references are general archaeological sources, two of them probably little better than blogs, but I cannot find the subject in them. As a matter of policy, we do not have pages on every listed building, not should we have one on every archaeological site. This does not sound like an important site to me. Some of the supporting text wreaks to me of puff. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still day delete -- a wholly unverified article, allegedly on an archaeological monument. For all I know it could be a HOAX. Even if it is not that, it is clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 14 September 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. TOOSOON Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Finn

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

No info about the person, only 2 films have pages (small films that is), as well as refs are just fan pages, does not seem to be enough for now. Maybe someday. Wgolf (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I just noticed some TV roles but they all just seem to be small for now. Wgolf (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Where's the rest ? ... Clearly no evidence of any notability. Fails WP:NACTOR .–Davey2010 • (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say this is a marginal case, but those are major tv shows, many of them recurring roles. I'd like to see more written about him, but I think his TV work meets notability standards. Cpuser20 (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Yeah saw his guest appearances now. Those do seem notable, but not sure if he needs a page just yet as it seems to be just one episode. Wgolf (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 August 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 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 14 September 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 02:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aret Madilian

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

Only ref is to the site for this band, I think a merge be the best or a redirect. Wgolf (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could say RD to Deleyaman but I am afraid that one will also be deleted. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deleyaman This article's only claim to notability is being part of the band - no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independently. WP:Articles for deletion/Deleyaman obviously has a bearing on this, as if Deleyaman is deleted, this would also be a straight delete. Boleyn (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 14 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Fodemski

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

Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. The only coverage in reliable sources is extremely brief mentions in articles about an invention of his. SmartSE (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. There is substantial coverage in:

Springs engineer's helmet could lessen concussions
(The "Spring's engineer" is Fodemski. He is in the article title.)
High tech football helmet with airbags
Local company changing the future of concussions

All of the above articles are based on interviews--with Troy Fodemski who is referenced and quoted throughout the articles, and they appear in the article's references list.--Svenstpaul (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Please also read the comment I left on the article's talk page. I do not have a conflict of interest on this article nor am I connected to the other authors.--Svenstpaul (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried hard to find substantial references, especially ones in any sources outside of the immediate geographic area of the business, but failed. Note that the original article appears to have been created by a WP:SPA Greg115. That user is now blocked. LaMona (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes I should have really mentioned de:Benutzer:Bouake123/sandbox/PTF and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sibtain_007 where I've requested CU on Svenstpaul. SmartSE (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 28 August 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 21:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 14 September 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. Minor character indeed. For those of a certain age *cough* its not minor at all. Plus consensus is clearly to keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travis (Blake's 7)

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

A minor sci fi character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including Solar Flares: Science Fiction in the 1970s, The Essential Cult TV Reader and A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Zen (Blake's 7), this is a somewhat marginal decision as Travis scarcely a well-known fictional character like Ebenezer Scrooge per WP:BKD. But the alternative seems to be to merge the article into Characters of Blake's 7. That article is already WP:TOOLONG and outright deletion of the content strikes me as being negative to Wikipedia rather than positive. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - article reads like a very lengthy piece of original research, without any claims or evidence of wider notice. Travis isn't even listed as a regular character in the Blake's 7 article. On the other hand I seem to recognise him from the images available online. If people know of sources about him rather than generally about the series, let's hear about them. Sionk (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Characters of Blake's 7#Travis Everything except for the infobox was already merged word for word on January 23, 2014 and is there in the current revision. Therefore, this article would be better as a redirect. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recurring character and major antagonist within the Blake's 7 series. Artw (talk) 04:51, 23 September 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. Withdrawn by nominator - Thanks to Tomwslucer for his efforts (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 ^Talk 06:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neena Haridas

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

NN journalist NickGibson3900 ^Talk ^{Sign my Guestbook} ^{Contributions} 23:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is calamining to be worked for the Business Standard and for The Telegraph., where it lacks the proper and reliable references. CutestPenguin ^discuss 05:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 21:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, due to lack of significant coverage about her rather than by her. On the otherhand she is/was a senior editor, widely quoted, on an important magazine and there may be coverage about her that I haven't spotted. Sionk (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's considered an authority on fashion, quoted often in sources here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. She's in a top position at an important magazine in the fashion world, in a huge market, QED notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Also there is an in-depth treatment here and an interview with her in this magazine. That's two in-depth treatments. The sources quoting here can be combined to further establish notability using the Wikipedia BASIC guideline which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Then, we got multiple sources. So she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't describe either of those as in-depth. One is an announcement of a job move in a minor news outlet, the other is a Q&A session, with Haridas doing all the talking. Sionk (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per work by User:Tomwsulcer. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Tomwsulcer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per appreciable efforts by @Tomwsulcer:. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 11:31, 15 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tube Bar (album)

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

Promotional page for a primarily digital download version of these prank calls. Some mention perhaps should be made on the main Tube Bar prank calls page, but past that this is cruft. Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC) (Adding discussion for SpyMagician.)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A pretty poor article about something which isn't notable.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 20:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 21:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Tube Bar prank calls. The album's article was created by someone whose username indicates a coi, which may be why something that doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG has such a long article. Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal (Kashmir)

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

Article of unclear Notability. Article fails General Notability Guildlines. It fails Academics it also fails WP:BASIC. Article differs from this notable historian I found. Wikicology (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I'm seeing several books authored by the subject of the article. The holdings are not particularly impressive, but that's not necessarily out of line for that time and this topic. The Mission of Islam, Realms of peace, Ideals of Islam & other essays, Emergence of Saudi Arabia : a political study of King Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, 1901-1953, Islamic toleration & justice : non-Muslims under Muslim rule, Saudi Arabia, an epitome of history & progress, Saudi Arabia, era of reconstruction, 1961-1981, and The culture of Kashmir. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VIAF.org has the author of those books born in 1928 not 1929, maybe a calendar error. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 21:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless categorical identification can be achieved and works can be matched to their author. There are a LOT of similarly named people in google scholar, at least two of whom appear to be notable, but they don't appear to be this person. 00:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep Apparently notable author and academic. I see no reason whateverto doubt the bibliography--they all fall soundly within his areas of work. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The clear consensus, including those who didn't necessarily follow procedures, is that the article isn't to be deleted - which the nom also stated - which makes this inappropriate for AFD as it's a non deletion reason. Further, discussions regarding redirecting the article can take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitcham Primary School

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

A user claims this is notable because two notable politicians attended this school. Almost all primary schools are redirected and I don't see why this one shouldn't suffer the same fate. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 09:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Mitcham, South Australia article. Ollieinc (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is also notable for its early establishment, only 11 years after the colonisation of South Australia. Bahudhara (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is probably the oldest continuing school in South Australia. Travers

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PROCEDURAL COMMENT - would participants please review WP:DISCUSSAFD and take note of the normal procedure for conducting AfD discussions. We do not use 'Oppose' or 'Support' and the various bots and tools will not recognise those !votes. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kingswood, South Australia. Almost all primary schools are certainly not deleted. In fact, according to the normal procedure established by clear precedent and documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES they are almost all redirected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kingswood, South Australia per SCHOOUTCOMES, Anyone using Support/Oppose in AFDs should be blocked indef until they learn!, Anyway on a related note just because it's been around for 11 years doesn't automatically make it notable. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick correction, it has been around for 167 years. The claim to notability being made is that this makes it the oldest existing school in the state. - Bilby (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure where I read 11 years but since it's been around for 167 years It's clearly historical so should be kept. (Cheers Bilby for spotting the error). –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The age of this one makes it notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 16:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG is a historic school of around 167 years and being the oldest state school in South Australia. It has received wide coverage for being the school where Julia Gillard studied .Through strictly speaking it fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES being a primary school but it clearly passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:46, 20 September 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. Nobody seems to really want to keep this, so... deleted until somebody does the newspaper archive search discussed below. Sandstein 18:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Marie Luise Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel

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

A made up title ("Princess Frederick Augustus of Anhalt-Dessau") and lots of genealogy, but no indication of any sort of notability. She existed, had a title and family. That is all we get from the article, and that is all we can possiby get. The article about her husband, however, is even more modest, lacking a made-up title. Surtsicna (talk) 08:43, 14 September 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 September 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and WP:BLPFAMILY. --Edcolins (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, "Princess Frederick Augustus of Anhalt-Dessau" is exactly how a polite pedant of her time would have referred to her. In practice, usage was more casual, so she would normally have been referred to as "Princess Frederick of Anhalt", which does actually find contemporary sources when used as a search term - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Having said that, while the daughter of one sovereign duke, the sister-in-law of another, mother-in-law of a Grand Duke of Luxembourg and aunt of the then Princess of Wales (and godmother of one of her daughters) could almost certainly be shown to pass WP:GNG by someone with access to an extensive archive of 19th-century newspapers and willingness to spend a few days trawling through their social columns, I am not going to bother. PWilkinson (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain that even "someone with access to an extensive archive of 19th-century newspapers" would be able to show that this person is notable. It would be helpful if you could at least point to two sources showing that Princess Frederick of Anhalt herself (not just her family) has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If she was notable, I would have expected Google Books to return more than a couple of passing mentions [52]. --Edcolins (talk) 08:41, 21 September 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 02:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carfax Abbey (band)

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

This was successfully prodded in 2009; I couldn't find the reasons for its restoration. The two albums with articles don't seem to meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG, and I couldn't establish that the band meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's got nothin' - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but no sources to come close to satisfy WP:GNG. Plus, I'm from Philly and I haven't heard of them.-- danntm ^T _C 21:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find coverage to show that this group meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow talk 23:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:43, 21 September 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. Michig (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eisa Ali

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 08:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 08:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability. Only sourced by Youtube. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 September 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. Michig (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bui Tien Dung (footballer)

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

Has not played a full season-does not meet the Wiki Soccer criteria. Wgolf (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY as he doesn't play in a league listed at WP:FPL which is the list of fully professional leagues. NFOOTY says you must have played a game in a fully professional league. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 05:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL (no appearances per Soccerway). Giant Snowman 18:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSOCCER, having never played in a fully professional league, and contains no references. Should have just left the BLPPROD tag on the article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smeetesh patel

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

Possible hoax? The only refs I could find online were to Facebook and the creator shares the same name. Either way it still is unreferenced. (Plus the dates are all this year) Wgolf (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G3 (hoax) - How could a member of parliament have:

No links to it (All members of parliament would be linked from at least one other article (the electorate/division page) and this ones an orphan)
No reliable sources - the electoral commission would have him listed as a member
His apparent electorate (Vadodara East) doesn't exist.

Also:

No mention on Bharatiya Janata Party the party is apparently vice-president.
This ones the real humdinger: Article says Patel in chairman of the Indian airpot authority, official Indian airpot authority clearly states; "Chairman: S. Raheja"

NickGibson3900 ^Talk 04:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 04:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Ha ha (someone should put this on the Wikipedia Hoax page). I did have it as a prod until I looked at all of the dates). Wgolf (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf:, This is fun. One more: List of members of the 16th Lok Sabha Does not list him as an elected member of the 16th Lok Sabha which the article says he is in. Oh and considering the user who wrote this name is Smeetesh Patel it is almost almost certainty a hoax. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 04:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now ironically it isn't one ha ha, I thought it was when I noticed the name also lol. Wgolf (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A11 - I've tagged it as A11 as it seems to be a hoax, Although he does have facebook pages I'm getting the feeling he's just made them up I dunno (Anyone can make a fb page saying they're apart of some organization) .... but he's not even listed on BJP nor does his name and "Bharatiya Janata Party" bring anything up on Google .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per nom. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 07:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry Parental Controls

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

This is a puff piece created by blocked spammer User:Sentryparentalcontrols. The puff piece is about some software. I am unconvinced that the software was ever notable. Worse yet, the company doesn't appear to sell the software anymore.

Software is created. Spammers spam Wikipedia to advertise the software. The software is discontinued, and fades away, like smoke dispersing into the wind. But the Wikipedia article remains until someone deletes it. It's time for us to delete the article.

Delete per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION and/or per WP:IAR.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't find out whether it's still sold or not - Amazon returns 'not currently available' or something like that. But the US Federal Trade Commission filed a suit against it (privacy, deceptive selling practices) and that issue has coverage in two books, I added those as refs in the article along with two FTC site refs. Two book mentions ("enduring coverage"), the coverage of the FTC suit, and the Daily Telegraph article suffice for GNG, as I see it. Novickas (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Novickas, for adding the FTC info. However, most of the article is still promotional, like the "must have" part. If the FTC section could be fitted into Computer_surveillance then this article could be a delete LaMona (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea...but I don't see any section in Computer_surveillance, as it's currently written, that it would fit into. There do seem to be a fair number of articles out there about consumer surveillance software [53]. (It needs a section on that, no? But I'm not up to creating it.) Most of them address completely inadvertent surveillance. Like this [54]. I'd support a Redirect if someone does expand the Computer Surveillance article to include a section where someone could reasonably put ref'd info about this product. A redirect preserves the article and its refs. But it doesn't make any sense without a dedicated section about it in the target article. I don't know how often Merge outcomes are affirmed at AFD and I wonder how often the merged material then ends up getting lost. So, pending the inclusion of the referenced material, which I see as worthwhile, into some other article, I'd prefer to keep it. Novickas (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while it was briefly covered in the trade, it doesn't appear to meet general notability guidelines. I'm unaware of specific software criteria, but think it's borderline at best. A redirect to its industry might be warranted. StarM 02:26, 22 August 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 03:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:56, 14 September 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. Michig (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Papers

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

No indication of notability, and inherently unlikely to be notable, given that it's just one of hundreds of anime wallpaper websites, which happens to have made a website theme. The article also mostly reads like promotion for that theme and Zenphoto, the article for which was deleted for lack of notability. —innotata 03:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious Promotional article for Non notabale website. To compound issues, the site sounds like it's also hosting, or providing ways to source copyrighted material like music. I can't check this as the actual site is down.SephyTheThird (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since when have wallpaper websites been notable? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely not notable and promotional to boot. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss WretleMania

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

non-notable, short-lived pro wrestling "championship" ... additionally, the article title appears to be mis-spelled to avoid this existing redirect page to Wrestlemania XXV Roberticus talk 01:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- probably even speedy delete -- It's an erroneous title for a subject that isn't notable.LM2000 (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn competition/reality endeavor. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 16 September 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.

[1] Rene I. Alfaro; S. Taylor; R.G. Brown; J.S. Clowater (2001). "Susceptibility of northern British Columbia forests to spruce budworm defoliation". No. 145. Forest Ecology and Management. p. 181-190.

[2] J.S. Burleigha; R.I. Alfarob; J.H. Bordena; S. Taylorc (2002). "Historical and spatial characteristics of spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) outbreaks in northeastern British Columbia". Forest Ecology and Management. No. 168. pp. 301–309.

[1]

[2]