Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 16

Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 16
Medal record
Mens Judo
Southern U.S. Championships
US Air Force Worldwide Championships
U.S. Olympic Trials

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 March	17 March >

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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryn Weaver

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

No evidence of any significant notability. Looks like a vanity article. No music in any acknowledged national chart. All references relatively trivial Fails WP:MUS Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete-even the filmography is a bit well brief (a appearance on a major show is a great start, but too soon still) Wgolf (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. IPadPerson (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough notability to meet WP:MUSICBIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no other dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Rosalen

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

Notability concerns and no citations. giso6150 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have copied over the citations and external links from the ptWP. I think they make the notability clear. It is a little rash to decide an enWP article is unreferenceable without at least checking the corresponding article in the language of the subject. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with improvements or PNJCS. Thank you, @DGG:, for copying those citations and links. I agree that it would be rash to claim that this article is unreferenceable—in fact, I found this myself. I did read both versions of the article and I looked at the edit history for each. This article has been orphaned in more ways than one, however, and I wanted some discussion about whether or not the subject was, in fact, ”…regarded as an important figure … widely cited by peers or successors … known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, etc.” WP:ARTIST. Neither the ptWP or enWP article has had significant work done in the past 4–5 years and notability can change. —giso6150 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Revere Massachusetts Tornado

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

This tornado is a non-notable WP:EVENT. While it was somewhat outside the normal geographic range, this tornado was a rather routine occurrence. It caused no fatalities and only a handful of injuries, and damage was not all that substantial as tornadoes go. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The first recorded tornado in a county is only notable enough for mention in the summary in its entry on List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2015. The rest of it is routine and also could easily be covered in that same summary. United States Man (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A minor local event without any lasting significance whatsoever; fails WP:GEOSCOPE. I'm a Massachusetts editor who reads the Boston Globe, and I have family in Revere, and I'd long since forgotten about this. Ravenswing 05:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Timmons

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

Poorly sourced (it was actually attempting to get away with some Facebook sourcing, until I yanked that) WP:BLP of a person notable only for serving on a county-level council, which is not a role that satisfies WP:NPOL. While admittedly a few of his colleagues on South Dublin County Council do have Wikipedia articles, those few all have some other claim of notability, such as having previously been an Olympic athlete or a Teachta Dála — and that covers a grand total of four members on a council of 40. Besides this guy, the other 35 members of the council, the ones for whom the council itself is the crux of their notability as it is here, do not have Wikipedia articles. Also dead-cert WP:COI, if you compare the creator's username (User:Cllrclondalkin) to the name of the district that the topic is "cllr" for. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a member of the County Council is not sufficient to meet WP:POLITICIAN unless they have received significant coverage. The only coverage I can find is of him calling for things to happen, or proposing motions, not any actual significant coverage of him, so I cannot see how the article can pass the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Davewild. Apparent autobio of an otherwise non-notable local politician. --Finngall ^talk 22:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not received significant coverage per WP:GNG. A standard county councillor who is not notable. Snappy (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like run of the mill coverage about a local politician but does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Mkdw ^talk 19:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sour Keys

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

This product, Sour Keys, does not present to meet relevant guidelines for notability and appears to be lacking substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. Deletion was proposed on March 7, 2015 and later contested by 173.35.255.129. Unsourced article. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was able to confirm that this product exists, but that's all. Not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (Non-admin closure). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Prather

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NCOLLATH (the honorable mention All-American or first-team All-SEC aren't mentioned in Template:Men's college basketball award navbox). Not enough individual coverage for WP:GNG. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. In addition to "Casey Prather’s star turn a boon for Florida" NBCSports.com already in the article, I have found "Florida's Prather steps in, steps up" ESPN.com, "Aging gracefully, Casey Prather leads Florida to another big win" SI.com, "Casey Prather trying to stick with Phoenix Suns" azcentral.com, "Profile: Casey Prather" gainesville.com.—Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree he meets GNG, mostly gained during his college career (but notability is not temporary). In addition to those articles posted by Bagumba, here are some others: "Ex-Michigan recruit Casey Prather becomes Wolverines' rival with Florida" Detroit Free Press, "Jackson, Tenn., product Casey Prather plays crucial role as Florida pursues national title" Memphis Commercial Appeal, "Casey Prather's promise now talent for Florida" Tampa Bay Times. Also, as a star player on a high-profile team his injury comings and goings received headline articles (as opposed to one-line transaction reports) on national sports sites like ESPN.com, NBCSports.com and FOXSports.com. I should point out that I was the article's creator - and that I should have done a better job sourcing the article when I wrote it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn: Thanks, it looks like I must've misspelled the name or something when searching for further sources. I've withdrawn the nomination, although additional non-transactional coverage, such as the examples above, should be added to the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Play, New Jersey

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

Yet another GNIS-hallucinated "community". The article cites several maps, but none of them actually uses this place name. In fact the location given is just a T intersection in the middle of nowhere in particular. The only "history" given is surmised from one of the maps. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article currently stands, the multiple sources provided scrape by the standard to establish notability per WP:GEOLAND. As created, with a single source from GNIS, I would have agreed that the article shouldn't exist on a standalone basis, though I would ask why you're not arguing for a redirect as I would have (and did) under those circumstances. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I do not consider GNIS a sufficient demonstration that the spot was occupied by a town/hamlet/whatever at any time, especially as (so far) all the primary sources presented (which is all the sourcing we have) do not name the place (with the exception of the legislative report, which does not say what kind of place Fair Play is). If I eliminated the primary sources the two location catalogues would be all that was left. Mangoe (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what Alansohn said. Famartin (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what Famartin said about Alansohn. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) said about Famartin said about Alansohn. –Davey2010^Talk 04:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ha, I'm gonna break the pattern, but yes I concur with the above. There are reliable sources provided to establish some notability. Tinton5 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - THIS seems to be adequate, as cited in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yarborough_poker

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

Non-existent game just made up one day. The are only 49 mentions online and all merely mentions online relate to this article or wikicommons. References in article have nothing to do with made-up game, but rather just poker games in general. 2005 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WizardofOdds does give probabilities for "ten card stud", which this article uses, but nobody's heard of that either. (Plus, they don't accept royal flushes in yarborough poker?) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gordon (swimmer)

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

Non-notable college swimmer. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). FYI, there is no specific notability guideline for swimmers, but they often qualify under WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS, but the subject does not, having never competed in any senior international swimming event. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NCOLLATH, the page should be deleted. The individual hasn't really accomplished anything passed the collegiate realm. As Dirtlawyer said, at a minimum, he should compete at a senior international swimming event. I would go further in that the individual should at least win a medal, but that's my own opinion. Philipmj24 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Official Album Streaming Chart

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

WP:GNG concerns. The only reference in the article that even mentions the chart is a primary source, with the rest being about streaming singles. If I do a quick Google search, I can only find one article (this one) that is about the albums streaming chart specifically, with most of the rest (e.g. here, here, here and here) being more about streams being incorporated into the main album chart. The equivalent singles streaming chart may well be notable, but notability is not inherited. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also these [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.10.254 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary sources. We need third-party ones (i.e. not published by OCC themselves) to establish notability. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A mention in Official Charts Company may suffice, but that's about it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Yesson

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. His work may have been played once on the BBC, which has several stations and covers a huge volume of new artists, but I can find no evidence that it was ever placed in rotation. The one secondary source given is a brief mention of his per-tweet mentions service in the Herald. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the fact he has celebrity accounts on many social media accounts? ie: facebook verified [4] and Whosay [5] could these sources be used in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesson20 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those aren't considered WP:Reliable sources to support WP:Notability, since anyone can create a verified account on social media. That might prove that they exist, but it doesn't prove that they're notable. Has Yesson ever been interviewed in a notable magazine, or has his work ever been in the charts? Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 19:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The only reference which is not a directory listing or playlist is a newspaper article that only mentions him in passing, and in a rather dismissive way that doesn't really pertain to his main line of work. ubiquity (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smart (healthcare administrator)

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chief Executive of a major London university hospital Mirrortoamermaid (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 14th highest paid NHS manager in the UK [6]86.140.3.24 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet of Mirrortoamermaid.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable hospital bureaucrat. Nom or closer, please also include/treat similarly Caroline Shaw (healthcare administrator) ("...the 33rd highest paid manager in the NHS"!). Pax 07:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Shaw was appointed a CBE in the 2013 New Year Honours for services to the NHS. She was the first-ever NHS winner of a First Women Award in 2010 in recognition of her work in improving services for cancer patients. Shaw was chosen as Patron for the 'Network National' for UK business women in 2009. She received the North West Inspiring Woman of the Year award in 2007. Shaw received Crain's Manchester Businesses Businesswoman of the Year award in 2009.[7][8]86.161.191.177 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet of Mirrortoamermaid.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a de facto "Employee of the Year" award doesn't make you notable. If the award isn't notable, then neither does winning it establish notability. Pax 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As a CBE, Caroline Shaw quite clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. We have always held that the CBE satisfies that. Completely different case and not at all relevant to this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the British Empire "...is the most junior and most populous order of chivalry..." CBE is the third category down within it - in other words, it's one of the lesser designations given to the people they're not going to "knight". (English civil-service is like a special-needs camp where everybody gets a ribbon.) Pax 22:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you quite clearly have no real understanding of the British honours system (as your last sentence clearly illustrates). Each rank of an order is lower than the equivalent rank of a higher order, but higher than the next rank down in a higher order. The British system does not rank all recipients of a higher order above all recipients of a lower order - it doesn't work like that. In addition, it is the only order that can be awarded to anyone and not just to specific categories of people (which is the case with the Order of the Bath, Order of St Michael and St George and Royal Victorian Order). Although the Order of the British Empire is the most junior order, the CBE is the highest of its ranks below knighthood (and the highest rank below knighthood for which most people are eligible), outranking the LVO (which belongs to a higher order, but is a lower rank), and only a few dozen are awarded every year. Many OBEs and MBEs are awarded, but not CBEs. We have consistently held in AfDs that the CBE (but not the OBE or MBE) is indeed a notable award under WP:ANYBIO #1. And many recipients of the CBE do in fact go on to be knighted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they're throwing knighthoods out like candy at a parade these days (a sort of grade inflation for awards), I think we ought not be reflexively considering CBEs to be that notability-granting. I mean, if these not-quite-knights were actually bearing arms (i.e., all that hoary days of chivalry and jousting tournaments business), WP:Soldier would be considerably more strict on who makes the cut.05:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Necrothesp is right. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High profile public sector administratorOldjoe2 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the vote as Oldjoe2 has admitted that he and Mirrortoamermaid are the same person. I'm leaving in Mirrortoamermaid's keep vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Based on a report at WP:SPI, I asked the closing non-admin to reopen this as the struck votes by socks of the author of the article may have influenced his decision to close this as keep. I express no opinion as to whether the article should be kept or deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: more discussion about Smart, please? czar ⨹ 19:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 19:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I am somewhat sympathetic towards articles on those holding influential managerial positions within the establishment, even if their biographies lack human interest. However, the only Tim Smart I could find is the British Ambassador to Madagascar. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PileInspect

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

A rather obscure research project with no attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This does not seem to me to be encyclopaedic material. If there is an article on pile testing, or whatever, it could and should reference the page given which describes the aims and design of this specific project. Of course, if this project turned out to be a crucial step in the development of better foundations it would be notable. Imaginatorium (talk)

Dear Roger and Imaginatorium, thanks for your comments on Wikipedia page 'PileInspect'. We have clear and detailed design of an integrated system, both on hardware development and signal processing algorithms. We are now in preparation of patent application and academic publications some of which have been accepted and will be presented soon. Due to patents issue, please excuse us from releasing the details temporarily. It can also be expected that PileInspect system's novel technologies will be recognized and sourced in the near future. We hope this article will not be simply deleted because it is just lack of verifiability temporarily. We will improve and enrich this article with solid materials on the techniques achieved from the PileInspect project as soon as possible. The recent revisions on this article include:

Added 'See also' of 2 nearly related techniques in pile integrity testing. In the 'Objective', we explained the differences between our system with these 2 traditional methods;
Added the category of this article to 'Geotechnical Engineering'.Zhenghaitao (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Zhenghaitao: I guess you are a new editor here. You should learn a bit about Wikipedia policies, among which WP:N (a subject is covered only if it was covered by reliable, secondary sources); WP:CRYSTAL (if something is not notable or verifiable yet, we have no business in guessing whether it will be later); and also a bit of WP:COI (if you have a close connection with the subject it is best to refrain from editing it). Tigraan (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tigrann. I will improve the article by adding more reliable, third-party sources. I wish the page can be left in Wikipedia by Tagging not just simply deletion. Zhenghaitao (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On User_talk:Coren you said: "We are creating the Wikipedia page which is a project task." Are you saying that your project, your manager, or someone else has told you to make a Wikipedia page? If so the page should obviously be deleted immediately. You could try to explain to whoever it is that this is not how Wikipedia works. Otherwise there is no obvious reason you should "need" to have this page on WP: you can create the article somewhere else, and host it on your project website, blog, or whatever. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Brooks (singer)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC, fails criteria one as most of the sources are primary. Mdann52 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 13:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources in the article aren't perfect and I can't find any shred of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Florescu

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

Classic vanity page. Let's check through the online sources presented.

Cruft
No mention of John Florescu
Florescu's own company
Florescu Foundation
No mention of Florescu
Puff piece about his marriage
Cruft
Dead link
IMDb cruft (no mention of Florescu, either)
Press release hosted on Florescu's own website
Cruft
?
?
Editorial written by Florescu

In sum: there are scattered mentions here and there, as can be expected for the son of a famous father who's had a fairly successful career himself. But there's nothing approaching the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" standard set by WP:BASIC, and so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would tentatively agree with the nominator's analysis of the sources in the article, and after doing some homework I couldn't find anything more relevant. It seems that the subject's father is far more notable, or at least there is more material about him. The bio does read like a vanity piece, and I suspect there is some COI going on there, but I don't see how the material there can sustain the notion that there is significant coverage of Mr. Florescu. Long and distinguished career for sure, but very little about it in reliable sources. The only thing I initially worried about was that we could be missing some sources in Romanian, but since the subject's career has largely progressed in the United States as far as I can see, it's unlikely that he would be more notable there than here. There are also some claims regarding his involvement in politics that I could not source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arcsoft. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcsoft TotalMedia Theatre

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

Non-notable discontinued product. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Arcsoft. Software article of unclear notability. Sourcing shows it exists, but is insufficient to establish notability independent of the company, so a redirect to the authoring company is reasonable.Dialectric (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "merge + redirect" (or only the latter) solution suggested by Dialectric would be fine from my POV. –20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian animated television series

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

The page has existed since 2012 and there's almost nothing here. Category:Canadian animated television series does a better job. Fuddle (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CLN does not require that a category and a list always coexist for the same grouping of topics — there are certainly circumstances where we should rightly have both, but I don't see this as one of them. The "list" is just a poorly maintained and extremely minimal selection that should be hundreds of entries larger than it is, and the category is not diffused into the array of subcategories that it would take to make the list useful as an alternate method of navigation. So this doesn't fall into the set of situations where a category and a list are both needed; it falls into the set where the list is just "because we can" duplication that has absolutely no value whatsoever. And for added bonus, I can't find any indication that any other country has its own standalone "List of (Country) animated television series" — everything else in Category:Lists of animated television series is a list by year, by decade or by method of animation, and this is the only one by country. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It provides more info than the category. No valid reasons for deletion have been offered. Being incomplete and the fact that there are no other country lists don't qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Canadian animated television series. Also has significant potential for expansion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Onel5969 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth-El (Great Neck, New York)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as per AfD guidelines. Onel5969 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. See not only the RS refs in the article itself. But also those here, here, here, and here. So much coverage, I would not be surprised if this were to close as a snow keep.

I also note this nom is attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the top-listed 5 articles nominated by him, today, here. Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche - Until Arxiloxos added additional citations to several of the articles, all 5 had no more than a single external reference (including this article, or in one case, two brief mentions), which clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Not sure what you're insinuating by your above comment, but it clearly does not adhere to WP:AGF. This came about as a result of another editor who had an article which could only reference the synagogue's own webpage (it had several other references, but none which spoke to the synagogue itself), who has been declined several times by different editors at AfC. To defend his article's lack of references, he mentioned 6 other synagogues, which I took a look at. Due to the dearth of references on 5 of those articles, since they clearly did not meet WP:GNG, I nominated them for deletion. I didn't nominate the 6th (Beth Sholom Congregation (Frederick, Maryland)), since that clearly did meet GNG.Onel5969 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith. I assume simply that today you in good faith have nominated for deletion five articles in a row on synagogues, which meet GNG.

By your comment, I assume that in your deciding whether to assert that an article fails to meet GNG, you only looked at the refs in the article itself? And did not independently google for refs that were not in the article, but that did in fact satisfy GNG? Is my understanding correct? Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by your comment, it would appear that you weren't AGF. You're also incorrect that I didn't check references. Regarding this article, for instance, a google search revealed a FB page, the org's website, the Wikipedia entry, a mention on foursquare.com, a mention on greatschools.org, several mentions to Cosmopolitan Caterers (which apparently is the caterer of the Synagogue), a listing on nonprofitfacts.com, a few wedding announcements, a listing on wow.com, a blank entry on seathound.com, a listing on www.longislandexchange.com, a map on maven.co.il, a yelp listing, a mirror listing on digplanet, a legal complaint being reinstated against the synagogue, and two more business listings. None of which would show GNG. That's the first two pages in their entirety on Bing. Similar results were for the other articles as well. So, by your comments, I assume you are again attempting to insinuate something. Regardless, have a nice day. Onel5969 (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What User talk:Onel5969 is that the sole in-line reference in the article at the time he posted it to AFD was a book about Great Neck published by Rutgers University Press. This, and the other synagogues in the mass deletion attempt, are not hard to source. A tag pointing out the need for sources would have been appropriate, rushing to AFD is, well, hard to understand in this case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969-You clearly did not do an adequate search on the diffs I posted above. Just the Gnews diff alone shows many RS sources supporting GNG. Plus, you don't understand what AgF stands for. It does not mean "assume the rules were followed" or "assume competence in editing". It does not mean that editors cannot criticize your actions. When you nominate 5 articles in a row for AfD, and they attract 2 dozen Keep !votes, zero Delete !votes, and Snow closes. Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you clearly do not understand what AGF means, nor the Wikipedia pillar of civility, as evidenced once again by your personal attack in this latest post. I suggest you re-read both of those, since you have failed to abide by them in discussion. Criticism is one thing, accusation and insinuation something entirely different. As is repeated mis-statements. And with that, as in keeping with tenets of civility, I will leave this discussion. Onel5969 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded to.

But I should add ... you might bolster the assumption of good faith by withdrawing your remaining, not-yet-SNOW-closed, nominations ... all of which have attracted unanimous "Keep" disagreement with your assertion of non-notability. I am surprised that you haven't ... in good faith ... done so.

The only benefit of these remaining open at this point is that more editors vote Keep, confirming that contrary to your nomination assertions sufficient GNG coverage did in fact exist. And perhaps impelling you to do better wp:before searches before your next nomination. And, I suppose, more editors may join those who have already said as much to you in these five AfDs.

Another sign of good faith on your part would be for you to say: "Yes, I hear what a number of editors have said, understand that my nominations require a more careful wp:before search, and have taken that on board and it will inform my future nominations." Have yet to hear that from you. Perhaps it is too much to ask, because you will feel a loss of face. But I hope your future nominations comport with such a view. Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the reliable and verifiable sources already in the article, as well as those added above by EF, which establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep long standing, well-sourced, well-edited that conspicuously meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - (Closing somewhat early as alot of sources have been added to the article, now Passes GNG with flying colours) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth-El (San Antonio)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many sources exist, and they reflect that this is a large, historic, and important congregation, led by a series of influential rabbis who have played a substantial role in political and social issues in Texas. I have added some content and sources to the article. -Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; significant coverage exists; more than enough to satisfy GNG. Arxiloxo's additions suffice, but a longer article could be written. Kuru (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Meets GNG. Per the above.

I note this nom is also attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the 5-top-listed articles nominated by him, today, here. Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche - Until Arxiloxos added additional citations to several of the articles, all 5 had no more than a single external reference (including this article, or in one case, two brief mentions), which clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Not sure what you're insinuating by your above comment, but it clearly does not adhere to WP:AGF. This came about as a result of another editor who had an article which could only reference the synagogue's own webpage (it had several other references, but none which spoke to the synagogue itself), who has been declined several times by different editors at AfC. To defend his article's lack of references, he mentioned 6 other synagogues, which I took a look at. Due to the dearth of references on 5 of those articles, since they clearly did not meet WP:GNG, I nominated them for deletion. I didn't nominate the 6th (Beth Sholom Congregation (Frederick, Maryland)), since that clearly did meet GNG.Onel5969 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By your comment, I assume that in your deciding whether to assert that an article fails to meet GNG, you only looked at the refs in the article itself? And did not independently google for refs that were not in the article, but that did in fact satisfy GNG? Is my understanding correct? Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable and verifiable sources in the article pass the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Onel5969 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth El (Madison, Wisconsin)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, per AfD guidelines Onel5969 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets GNG. Per those RS refs now in the article. As well as the various others I didn't even bother to put in ... as we already have quite enough to satisfy GNG.

I note this nom is also attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the 5-top-listed articles nominated by him, today, here. (I'm commenting on similar AfD nominations today by nom that suffer from the same malady in the nomination; I'm not saying that nom acted in bad faith - just that he is seeking today to delete five synagogue articles on the same unwarranted basis ... perhaps he didn't carefully and exhaustively perform google, and gnews, and gbooks searches). Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a sizeable and influential congregation with an important rabbi in its history. Notability was apparent from basic searches, and Epeefleche has now added multiple sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, as per User:Arxiloxos, User:Epeefleche.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the above reasons. Temple Beth El is one of the important, influential congregations in Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeefleche and the rest. To @Onel5969: What's up doc? You should avoid nominating mass deletions, that look more like "massacres" without first trying to arrive at some WP:CONSENSUS and not laying the foundations for a misguided WP:BATTLEGROUND environment. You need to read up on WP:SPIDERMAN ASAP, and cool it! In future feel out the waters by consulting some WP:EXPERT editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM before going on a rampage of nominations like this that is not a formula for WP:CIVIL. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@IZAK: - And you sir, should read up on AGF. 5 nominations of articles which had virtually no independent citations prior to their nominations is hardly a "massacre". The WP:BATTLEGROUND was supplied by inaccurate and inflammatory comments by Epeefleche. The articles clearly failed GNG when nominated. Brief internet searches did not provide any substantive support. And so, following the procedure as set down in XfD, they were nominated. You should really understand what civility is about. But I'll just take it for granted that you're having a really bad day. Take it easy. Onel5969 (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Onel5969: Hi there again! I am really having a wonderful day and evening, hope you are too! One should never "shoot first and ask questions later" when trying to COLLABORATIVELY write encyclopedia articles, and if called out for that, then avoid "crying wolf" because you have missed the point that as has now been proven to you, such articles can and are improvable if you go about it the right way and avoid scaring the heck out of editors that you are on a rampage by lunging into mass nominations of articles for deletion. You could have moved a lot slower and started with one article and asked for input at WP:TALKJUDAISM since you obviously do not know much about this subject you dove into. If I for example wanted to opine about neurosurgery or astrophysics subjects that I know that I know next to nothing about, I would not run in and nominate for deletion some of their related articles because by now as experienced WP editors, articles are NOT born fully-formed and perfect but evolve and grow. Many times they are just a {{stub}} for years til someone comes along and has the time to improve them. That is why you should read up on and internalize the meaning of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE and really try taking WP:COMPETENCE and WP:EXPERT very seriously. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969. You apparently haven't read or taken to heart what I've written to you here and in this discussion and in the other AfDs. Or perhaps you're confused by what the requirements are. First, I've made no inaccurate comments.

Second, you say "The articles clearly failed GNG when nominated." That's plainly false. You seem to suffer from a misapprehension that an article fails to meet GNG if the GNG refs are not in the article. That's simply incorrect. As long as the requisite RS sources exist, the article meets GNG whether or not the sources are reflected as refs in the article. Please take a moment to understand this. You are required as a nom, under wp:before, to understand and act in accordance with the wp:before rule that "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."

Third, as a nom, you have an obligation under wp:before to search for additional sources. And "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." The RS refs reflecting that these synagogues you nominated for deletion did in fact meet GNG (the opposite of your assertion in your nominations) were all discoverable by performing google searches. Yet you, by your own admission, stopped short in your google searches after 2 or 3 pages. That's not appropriate. Had you performed the searches as you were required to perform them, you would have seen that the appropriate RS sources existed, and that the articles met GNG, and would not have incorrectly asserted otherwise and wasted the time of other editors with (good faith, no doubt) erroneous assertions and improper AFD nominations. That you did this with five articles in a row is a sign that you should take another look at you approach, and carefully understand WP:BEFORE, prior to making further nominations.

Finally, when as here you see 2 dozen !votes to Keep the articles you nominated for deletion, and zero !votes supporting your nominations, and your nominations are being SNOW-closed after a day or two as not having a snowball's chance in hell of being agreed with, it may be a good time to reconsider your practices. Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche - Simply because you say something occurred the way you say it did, doesn't mean that's what happened. As was carefully explained to you, I followed the EXACT procedure as put down in AfD, and did not find the references. In the same criteria you quote above, you conveniently leave out the end of that criteria: "Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Which is exactly what I did. You feel that the search was not exhaustive enough. Fine. You have a right to your opinion. You do not have the right to make accusatory statements based on that opinion. If you truly were a proponent of AGF, you would not then make (and continue to make even after it was explained to you) the incorrect and accusatory statement, "... he is seeking today to delete five synagogue articles on the same unwarranted basis ...". It was not unwarranted, and your incorrect assertion that it was is uncalled for. As per WP:UNCIVIL, I attempted to open a discourse with you, and you continue to put forth your personal attacks. These personal attacks have encouraged others to also engage in personal attacks. You may need to re-read the policy on civility.Onel5969 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at this article as it stood at the time User talk:Onel5969 posted it to AFD as part of an attempted group deletion of articles about American synagogues. While it is true that this article at that time entirely lacked sources, it contained conspicuous indications of probable notability, including a blue-linked rabbi. Rushing to AFD was clearly uncollegial and inappropriate. I suggest that User talk:Onel5969 might do better to admit that he was wrong and apologize; arguing aggressively with editors who called him on so very odd a move as a mass-deletion of long-standing synagogue pages, is piing inappropriate behavior atop an exceedingly odd mass deletion. Kudos to User:Epeefleche & User:Arxiloxos for sourcing this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969 - You failed to follow wp:before. First, you have repeatedly asserted, even after it was pointed out to you that it was flatly wrong, that the "articles clearly failed GNG when nominated." Obviously, if you have read and understand wp:before, you know the opposite is true.

Second, you failed to do a proper wp:before search. Otherwise, all 5 of these articles would not have been nominated. Even without looking further than the 2 pages per search (or sometimes 3) that you limited yourself to -- which I would advise you to expand, given the poor results of your 5 synagogue nominations -- I see sufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. But obviously, your history of review suggests that you do not fall within the "most cases" category, and you need to do a more comprehensive and careful review in order not to nominate a series of SNOW-closed AfDs.

My statement was true. You nominated at AfD 5 synagogues. You did it on an unwarranted basis. How can you disagree with that?

These are not personal attacks. Nor are they violations of AGF. You perhaps misunderstand both. You are not being attacked. Your actions are being criticized. And rightly so. Further, understand that AGF is an assumption. A rebuttable presumption. Despite AGF, we do in fact routinely block editors, and topic ban editors -- we don't say that because of AGF we can't do so. I personally still assume you acted in good faith though.

If you took your car out five days in a row, and each day got into a fender bender, we wouldn't say you did so in bad faith. But we would be quite correct to suggest that before you take your car out again, you should review your procedures. Because you are doing something quite wrong, as we can tell from the results. Such is the case here. Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated in another thread, with this, I'm done listening to this lack of civility, as per the wiki guidelines on dealing with uncivil folks. Have a nice day, all.Onel5969 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that Onel5969 was acting in good faith. Onel5969 has explained that these five AfDs were filed in response to a complaint from the author of Draft:Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation, a submitted draft that has been declined twice at WP:AfC, pointing to these articles as being unsourced while the Kol Hadash draft has multiple sources and was rejected nonetheless.

I would like to address two concerns I see arising from this narrative. First, it appears to me that a reasonable case might be made for the notability of Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation, based on sources like these: a 2008 NPR story [9]; a detailed 2008 article in the Chicago Tribune [10]; and a detailed 2014 story from WBEZ [11]; as well as a number of other articles about the congregation's rabbi, Adam Chalom, who is described in some articles as the most prominent American leader of the Humanistic Judaism movement since the death of Sherwin Wine. (The proposed draft has other problems that need addressing, particularly its highly promotional tone.)

But second, even if we assume for the moment that Kol Hadash isn't notable, there were some immediately obvious differences that made these five AfDs inappropriate. These are five older, large, mainstream congregations, each of which had some clear indication of likely notability right in the text of the article: a landmark building, prominent rabbi(s), long history, large congregation, history of influence in the community. In other words, these AfDs did not involve small or obscure neighborhood shuls, but important institutions of the sort that generally have articles on Wikipedia. The articles can all be improved, to be sure, but the problems were self-evidently surmountable, and AfD is not cleanup. So it is not surprising that experienced editors became concerned when they saw the AfDs. And in each case, my very quick check of Google, Google Books, Google News, and/or Google Scholar immediately turned up sources to verify notability. Also, as IZAK has noted elsewhere, many resources are available on Jewish topics that are not necessarily known to those unfamiliar with the area.

At this point, I think the AfDs that are still open can and should be closed; it doesn't sound like anyone still has doubts about the notability of the temple (or the others), and it can be hoped that going forward, we can take some constructive guidance from the experience. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep - Arxiloxos has also added some more references. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Congregation Israel

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already has sufficient sourcing to show its notability both as an influential congregation and for its building. More sources are apparent from a basic search, such as [12][13][14] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided in the article, and those listed above, address the architectural notability of the congregation's synagogue building. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Meets GNG. Per the above.

I note this nom is also attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the 5-top-listed articles nominated by him, today, here. (I'm commenting on similar AfD nominations today by nom that suffer from the same malady in the nomination; I'm not saying that nom acted in bad faith - just that he is seeking today to delete five synagogue articles on the same unwarranted basis). Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Snow Keep. Meets WP:GNG. noted architect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily keep per current sources and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Solel

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As sources verify (although some of them are paywalled), this congregation is notable as an early example of the havurah-based synagogue model, its civil rights activism, and as the early-career home of Arnold Jacob Wolf and Lawrence Kushner. Examples: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on notability established by the reliable sources in the article and those ample additional sources listed above. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Meets GNG. Per the above.

I note this nom is also attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the 5-top-listed articles nominated by him, today, here. (I'm commenting on similar AfD nominations today by nom that suffer from the same malady; I'm not saying that nom acted in bad faith - just that he is seeking today to delete five synagogue articles on the same unwarranted basis). Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Even a blue-linked rabbi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily keep per current sources and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Phenomenauts. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ion O'Clast

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

I'm unable to find significant coverage in third-party sources for this person and there's no indication that he passes the notability threshold for biographies either. Pichpich (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-if we had page for EVERY person who writes stuff online.....Wgolf (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A writer and performance artist who says his name is ionoclast Ion O'Clast. And when you google the name, the first hit is twitter. Where he has 27 followers. Zero hits on a news google search. Zero hits on a books google search. delete. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Phenomenauts, where he is already mentioned. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Fox cast members

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

Fails notability by itself, voice actors for notable characters are already mentioned at List of Star Fox characters. Soetermans. T / C 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-now listed I love Star Fox, but I can't say I've ever kept track of who the cast members are. (Only a few video games would need this list, heck Mario does not even have one!) Wgolf (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to the other list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Video game trivia out of scope for the encyclopedia (not an indiscriminate list). Better suited for Wikia. czar ⨹ 12:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this needs to be documented, it would belong at the character list. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need for this list. Any relevant info on the cast can be mentioned on the character page.--174.91.184.226 (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Hubbard

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

Judo competitor who has no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. He also doesn't meet WP:MANOTE--Air Force events are not considered the highest level of competition and he has no podium finishes at any national championship or open international competition.Mdtemp (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepEarned a bronze Medal in the Olympic Trials for the United States in 1964. Placing in the Olympic Trials shows sports notability. Olympic Trials are a notable national event. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where did you get the ideas that (a) medals are awarded in the U.S. Olympic Trials, and (b) participation in the U.S. Olympic Trials indicates notability per se for Wikipedia? Hint: neither is true. Please review WP:NOLYMPICS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator regarding WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Placing in a qualifying event does not confer notability. For Judo the highest level of competition would be either the World or Olympics (just attending would be enough) but that didn't happen. I would say that the New York Times reference caught my attention but then one realizes that it refers to the two competitors that went on to become the Olympic team members and the subject is mentioned only in passing as being defeated. Not really an appropriate first reference on the subject and a little disingenuous. I did alter the article text somewhat to reflect what other references actually said rather then the point the primary author wanted to make.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
commentMANOTE is a guide and he passes that. He passes WP:GNG by qualifying for the Olympic Trials and partcipating in them. He was also the winner of 2 other events outside of placing third in the Olympic Trials. He was also a member of the All Air Force Judo Team. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong - The general notability guidelines of WP:GNG require significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. I strongly urge you to actually read GNG before commenting further. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe he meets WP:SPORTCRIT because as stated, he only participated in the trials which are different than the games. When you exclude "trivial" coverage there is not enough to go upon for WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 08:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence given that he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:ATHLETE. In addition, my search didn't find the significant independent coverage of him required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage to pass MANOTE or GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rossella Visconti

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

Porn star with no coverage by reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Fails WP:PORNBIO without awards. A7 speedy declined. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and unreliable sources should not prevent an A7. I'm frankly astronished this wasn't toast at CSD. Anyhow, no evidence subject passed PORNBIO or GNG so auto fail for a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because starring in a bunch of titles is an assertion of notability. PORNBIO is a matter for slow deletion, and A7 isn't appropriate. -- Y not? 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If starring in said films is no indication of notability - which it isn't as starring in a bunch of titles isn't in PORNBIO - then no it shouldnt be taken as an assertion of notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the tow above reasons. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. (I would also add that I find the article creator's chosen nom de guerre of "The Hitmakers" to be suggestive of a possible COI account used to promote non-notable bios, and that its contrib history does little to dispel that notion.) Pax 06:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Starring in porn films" is not a criteria of any notability guide to be found in this project. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A not notable porn actress.User:Lucifero4
Delete Fails PORNBIO. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth McGee Younger

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

Unsure how notable this person is. I can't find any info about the screenplays she apparently has written (which are not even in the refs) so who knows if they were even made. Wgolf (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-for some reason this didn't appear on the page creators talk page. Wgolf (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's only one Elizabeth Younger listed in IMDb, and she's an unnotable actress. Anybody can write a screenplay; the trick is getting it produced, which this person hasn't. Now if she had started a gang and robbed a bank or two to finance a movie, then we'd have something. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Yadolahi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Do not Delete: all information is update and accurate --TrueContent 07:25, 23 March 2015 (PST)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prosenjit Choudhury

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

Filmmaker and composer fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:BASIC, no/very little coverage in reliable sources. The subject never created a movie, he/she only is planning one (in the article: "Dakbaksho"; no reliable sources or even self-published ones mention this planned movie; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). The "song" in this case (which received no coverage from reliable sources at all) is for the "planned" movie. Esquivalience ^t 15:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG and other suitable SNGs, WP:TOOSOON at best. Cavarrone 06:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no sources present on BLP. ― Padenton |☎ 18:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google blazes back at Mozilla, urges Firefox clients to change to Chrome

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Pishcal — ♣ 15:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio of this page. The author copied this article, but changed a few words around (i.e. changing "search results page" to "query items page".

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK! & all that fun stuff (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wallace

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Onel5969 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - As stated below, I misread the Politician guidelines. Sorry to have wasted your time. (thanks ScottDavis for the heads up). Onel5969 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, obvious keep. Um, what? He clearly and obviously meets WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a state legislature. What a bizarre nomination. Frickeg (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Frickeg. The sole reference confirms he was in the state legislature. What a waste of time. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I misread the WP:POLITICIAN guideline. Yes, obviously, keep. Onel5969 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You can withdroaw the nomination for yourself - see WP:WDAFD. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaila H. Awudu

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

May not satisfy notability criteria for people, although may not be enough to warrant a speedy. Only two sources are 1) from his temple, and 2) his own Facebook profile. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 15:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: It appears to be a page recreated (under a different page name) after a previous deletion discussion. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 19:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which previous deletion discussion where? The only previous version I can find is Rev Ismaila H.Awudu, which I speedied as an A7. —Cryptic 22:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable, no reliable sources. ~EdGl! 04:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks like a NN pastor to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't seem to find any substantial coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deden Rukmana

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

Contested prod created by the creator of the article. Also comes across as a resume somewhat. (and a autobio also) Wgolf (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entry "Deden Rukmana" should not be deleted because this page about an urban scholar whose works have appeared in many media. You can google his name and will find his works. Deden Rukmana is an urban scholar whose blog is one of the world's best city blogs according to the Guardian Cities. Thank you.

Deden Rukmana was also mentioned in an entry in Indonesia's Wikipedia: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikatan_Ilmuwan_Indonesia_Internasional

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We only keep biographies on outstanding individuals and this individual is not outstanding. WP:TOOSOON might apply, we'll see. Presently, he's just an associate professor. The unnecessary detailed list of grants, that the article was created by user:Dedenrukmana1 suggest a WP:COI. WP:NOTLINKEDIN applies. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Said E. Dawlabani

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

Author of the promotional book in the adjacent AfD. No other distinction or accomplishment, and writing of one non-notable pseudoscience book is not notability, even within the domains of pseudoscience. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability missing. Educationtemple (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabi Ji Ghar Pe Hai

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

Unsourced article about a one-week-old television series. I am unable to find any sources that establish notability. It's also not clear whether this is a broadcast television series, or an online-only series, in which case it may be eligible for CSD A7 deletion. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-unotable tv show. Wgolf (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Smith (Memphis Mafia)

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

Article falls under category of WP:INHERITED because of his familial relationship to Elvis Presley. As with his brother's article (Gene Smith (Memphis Mafia)), this individual has no real notability on his own. Was a member of Elvis' "Memphis Mafia", but not one of the better known and more notable members of the group. Other than books published with a passing reference to Smith in them, majority of article references are from questionable sources. If article not deleted, suggest it to be merged with or redirected to Memphis Mafia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; only one is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Memphis Mafia. Michig (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Smith (Memphis Mafia)

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

Article falls under category of WP:INHERITED because of his familial relationship to Elvis Presley. As with his brother's article (Billy Smith (Memphis Mafia)), this individual has no real notability on his own. Was a member of Elvis' "Memphis Mafia", but not one of the better known and more notable members of the group. Other than books published with a passing reference to Smith in them, majority of article references are from questionable sources. If article not deleted, suggest it to be merged with or redirected to Memphis Mafia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Memphis Mafia per WP:NOTINHERITED rationale. Vrac (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Notable enough for a mention in that article, but no more. Relentlessly (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Jüngling

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

Article falls under WP:INHERITED. Individual has no real notability on his own other than being the father of someone who started America's oldest brewery. Delete and redirect to D.G. Yuengling & Son which is now redirected to Yuengling. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; only one is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As an unsourced BLP, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Harris

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

Not notable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. No competitive bio at isuresults.com Hergilei (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Galerita (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC):[reply]

I was not aware there were detailed criteria for notability for figure skaters. I considered this question prior to writing the article. My reference case was Marin Honda whom I also note you [[22]] have marked for deletion on grounds of notability. I note the only "non-criteria" for notability is that Harris has been successful at at advanced novice level, below the threshold junior level. (Having a competitive bio at isuresults.com is not a criteria for notability.) I am happy to accept the article be deleted on grounds of notability provided the policy is applied consistently.

By the way there needs to be an article on the levels in figure skating, particularly the differences between (advanced) novice, junior and senior, noting the qualification ages (eg 10-15 for ISU novice on 1 July prior to competition) and the variation between the ISU and individual countries. Advanced novice, junior and senior are important as they are recorded in many competition pages, unlike basic novice. This one is inadequate. I don't have sufficient expertise to write this article, but see ^[1] for the ISU advanced novice criteria.

Postscipt. Marin Honda has achieved a Junior ISU record since the entries above.Galerita (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [static.isu.org/media/155035/1886-sandp-id-sys-new-novice-figure-skating-guidelines-2014.pdf/ ISU Communication No. 1886]

Galerita (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced biography of a living person unless reliable sources can be added to substantiate the content. I appreciate this was a good faith attempt to create an article, but writing biographies of living people without the benefit of third-party sourcing just opens the article to abuse and defamation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, Comment I accept the criteria for deletion based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability, but the article was sourced from the competition website, so I don't understand your objection on WP:BLP grounds. Galerita (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CI Capital

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

Article would require a fundamental rewrite to read as a non-promotional article. Also, the notability of the article is questionable, and no proof has been produced by the author to support notability. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Commercial International Bank, its parent. The article text as it stands is promotional - paraphrases of the firm's own website, not even the effort to edit out the 1st person plural. The parent's notability is not inherited by its sub-units. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whova

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

Fails to meet WP:Notability. A look at the history of this article shows that it was nominated once before for the same reason via WP:PROD. That time, the article creator (who appears very closely affiliated with the subject) removed the PROD tag, which is not a problem. I have notified creator as a courtesy. Article has too many issues to be worth saving. TritonsRising (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written the article is borderline spam. I couldn't find any independent coverage outside of directory listings and the occasional conference using the app, though this is something that ought to attract easily google-able commentary. Receiving an SBIR grant is not a sign of notability. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Pool

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

Restored contested prod of non notable book, articles consist mostly of a plot summary and character list - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party sources or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability, and the editor that requested restoration after it was previously PRODed has shown no interest in working on the article to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publisher and retailer web sites do not demonstrate notability.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ecce Romani

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

The article survived the first afd on the basis of "every text book is notable". But existence isn't equal to notability, which requires significiant coverage in secondary sources. None of the citeria in WP:NBOOK is met, either. Antigng (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NB. Also, there are even no refs. Whaterss (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: The original AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecce romani (2005). Noting for historical reference. Quiddity (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Progressives

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

This group only registered as a party less than a month ago, has not run a single candidate for office (much less elected one), and does not involve any notable politicians. Only one neutral source is provided, which basically says the party hasn't done anything yet. It's too soon for an article for this group. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I agree with the nomination statement - but the party is registered with the Australian Electoral Commission, which indicates at least some organisational presence. The article should be userfied until the party contests an election, though. Frickeg (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being registered only requires 500 members^[1], which is a tiny number in most countries. That said, userfy could be appropriate so this stuff is prepared if they do have success. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given dwindling party membership in Australia (even the major parties have fewer than 50,000 members [23]), it's not really trivial - plenty of quite long-standing groups have struggled with it (although declined registrations have decreased drastically in the last year or so, which is why there is a fair bit of talk about raising the threshold - 750 members, the NSW requirement, is viewed as almost draconian there). Generally there has been an unspoken convention in the Australian politics project that parties that are both registered and have contested elections are notable. Parties do quite often register and then fade away by the time the election comes around, though, which is why userfication is the appropriate response here, the next federal election being more than a year away. Frickeg (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of a lengthy rewrite of a piece on the Communist Party of New Zealand, which didn't break the 500 member mark for more than a decade. We shouldn't be obsessed with such things. If a party exists, write it up — just like we do for rivers, inhabited places, highways, high schools, etc. Carrite (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can feel the consensus going keep, and frankly I'm pretty OK with that; my understanding had always been that registration + contesting elections was the bar, and if it's going to be just registration in the future, fine. I do think that "existence" is way too low, though; there will be unregistered parties that are notable, but if we're writing up everyone we'll be writing articles about five blokes in a garage ranting drunkenly about th'immigrants. We have to have something reliable to write, after all. For the CPNZ, there are clearly a ton of sources so it has no trouble passing GNG. But I'm getting off track here. Frickeg (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying that we're in complete agreement about "existence" being insufficient, which is why we've both been consistently voting delete on unregistered parties for as long as I can remember! Unregistered parties a) frequently never do get registered, and b) may well be just "five blokes in a garage ranting drunkenly", but now that these guys have got registered, at the minimum their preference designations are going to factor into the Senate results in every state they run in. This is not inconsiderable, either: we may never hear of the Australian Independents again but in 2013 there was a roomful of tons of party scrutineers spending weeks specifically checking each vote for them because the entire Senate result hung on the order they and a handful of other parties finished in. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. For once, I strongly disagree with Frickeg. I have always argued (and until now thought it basically accepted) that AEC registration meant inherent notability, regardless of whether an election has been contested. There hasn't been a case of a party successfully becoming registered for the AEC and then fading away before a federal election in quite sometime, and the significance of new registered microparties is higher than it's ever been before. Our system of preferential ticket voting in the Senate means that all registered microparties seriously matter, both in determining who gets elected, and at the moment, in terms of the chances of actually getting themselves elected. I think it weakens our coverage of federal politics a lot if we start picking and choosing which registered parties get articles. Two microparties on the same level of notability as this one got people elected in 2013 (though one was later overturned in the WA revote), and all the others played into the Senate results in a very significant way through their preferences. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if someone is willing to take it, or Delete otherwise. Unless or until the party contests elections and get significant coverage in more than one reliable source it does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wasn't too sure at first, but The Drover's Wife's comments have swayed me. A few more non-niche sources would be nice, but I agree that AEC registration (or the equivalent at state level) renders a party notable. IgnorantArmies (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - I favor the lowest possible bar to inclusion of pieces on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology. If you wanna file this under an argument based on the site policy of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense), fine, but this is the sort of information that a comprehensive encyclopedia should include. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/party_registration/overview.htm

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 S chip. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S chips scandals

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

Sourced largely to dead links, and as far as I can see there is pretty much nothing to support the proposition that there are "S Chip Scandals" out there. If there are, there should be convictions for fraud in the sources. This was nominated for deletion in 2011 along with other "scandal" articles but this one, unlike the others, resulted in a "no consensus" determination. Time to put this awful article out of its misery. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to a section in S chip, seems to be 'reliable', links may be repairable. additional ref business insider Jonpatterns (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete. All bar three of the links given are dead. Of the other three, two are subscription-only and one of those looks to be just a report of a winding-up and not about scandals in general (so it looks like they're perhaps being used for OR/synthesis or passing mentions?) and the third is just the front page of something (so probably a redirected dead link). Searching (and ignoring blogs and forums) I find passing mentions of, for example, "S-chip accounting scandal!" [24], "The S-chips scandal of 2008-09" [25] and "the S-Chips scandal in Singapore" (attributed to "says an analyst") [26], but I can't find any in-depth sources covering what the scandal actually was (The businessinsider.com source found by Jonpatterns only contains a passing of mention of "S-chips scandals [corporate scandals surrounding Chinese companies listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange]", and that's quoting someone else). It seems likely that the "scandal" existed as a concept, but without any actual descriptive coverage I don't see how Wikipedia can host an article about it. I'd hope maybe someone can find repairs to the broken links so we can see if there's any actual coverage? Squinge (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is fixable with Wayback Machine, probably the other are too. One probably with S Chip is not everyone uses that term for Singapore chip.Jonpatterns (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources would need to support the position that there are indeed scandals involving S Chip makers, and that would have to be the focus of the articles. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into S chip, an article with two inches of text. Pax 07:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KarbonnA2+

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

Unknown source Rowdy srezan 11:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this phone has anything to distinguish it from hundreds of similar models. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article per WP:N. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alive (Guy Sebastian song)

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

Reason Tobyjamesaus (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is has not been released as a single, nor has it charted. Nor is it the Australian Eurovsion song. it is merely an album Track.

Yes, someone started it because of an edited version put on youtube and labelled as the Australian Eurovision entry. It wasn't, isn't a single, and probably never will be one. Should be deleted.

Natbelle (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorhawkes (talk • contribs) 05:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)‎[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fancyber

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

Non notable app. Most android apps also do not fit the criteria for notability in Wikipedia.

5 of the sources cited are not sources that can be verified but instead quotes from primary source.

The remaining sources are all from the company website.

Fails WP:GNG with an absence of reliable, independent sources to indicate notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, badly written piece of spam for an app created and run by a 16-year-old. Literally every reference goes to a primary source and according to Google has less than zero notability. I wouldn't mind if it got speedied for spam and the author blocked for doing nothing but advertising. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Wydo

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

The most significant award Wydo has won is 2014 Tournament MVP. I don't believe that qualifies under WP:NHOCKEY's fourth criterion for "preeminent honors". The article doesn't have sufficient sources to demonstrate notability under the GNG. Powers ^T 17:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Not quite correct: Wydo won, and the article states, First Team league All-Star honors, which does qualify under Criterion #4. Ravenswing 18:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that. Nonetheless, I consider the "first team league all-star" criterion extremely weak, particularly when it comes to college hockey leagues (which almost never have more than 12 teams). Powers ^T 00:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not accept first team all-star of a tiny conference as "preeminent". Undrafted player, no indication of anything approaching a pro career on the horizon. Lets just call this what it is - an ego-driven creation of a nn player article by a now indef-blocked editor. Reso lute 18:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very weak pass of WP:NHOCKEY, but this fails WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search reveals additional sources, not currently in the article. That, plus the fact that he actually meets WP:NHOCKEY anyway, is enough for me. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the same search and all of the articles that come up would fall under routine coverage. Deadman137 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the question is not whether there's coverage, but whether there's coverage that is unique to Wydo, and not just the sort of coverage that any college hockey player would receive. Powers ^T 13:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reasoning for keeping Scott Mathis points to a keep here.Joeykai (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though, I would contend that the "first-team All-Star" criterion is misapplied in the case of college hockey leagues. With only 6-12 teams per conference, it's not as significant an award as it would be in a 20- or 30-team minor professional or junior league. "All-American" is the criterion by which we should be evaluating college hockey players, as it's much more comparable. Keep in mind that these awards are supposed to serve as proxies -- they are selected as criteria because they are predictive about notable coverage being out there somewhere, even if the coverage hasn't been found yet. By that metric, first-team all-conference in college hockey really doesn't qualify. Powers ^T 18:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above aside, Wydo is a finalist for the Hobey Baker Award, marking him as one of the ten best players in men's college hockey this year. Due to that development, I withdraw this nomination. But I would like to continue the discussion of the issues raised, somewhere. Powers ^T 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made in over 21 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Innovadex

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

Promotional article with no indication of notability. The inclusion of multiple "key people" in the infobox is a fairly reliable indication of promotionalism for any but famous companies--especially when their names are highlighted in bold. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 04:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant spam. "...specialized search capabilities to help product developers...", etc. Pax 07:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment not entirely promotional, and so not G11. Not sure whether it shows sufficient notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Menear

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

Musician who does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Only two albums released: one was an independent release and the other was a self-release. Per WP:BEFORE, I tried to find better sources for the article, but was unable to find anything which might establish notability. Asked at both WT:MUSICIAN#Trevor Menear and WT:BIOG#Trevor Menear but only comment received so far was "AfD it". Did appear at SXSW, but so have lots of musicians/bands, so I'm not sure if that's even enough to establish notability per WP:BIO1E. Same for goes for the cover recorded for Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur. Lots of Google hits to user-generated sources, social media sites and concert listings, but nothing representing any kind of significant coverage beyond an appearance on a local Chicago ABC affiliate.Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as they lack coverage and does not have a charted album/single. SilentDan (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimír Pláteník

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

Fails notability for tennis players, see WP:NTENNIS Flat Out let's discuss it 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable Slovak tennis coach, meets WP:GNG, in my opinion: [27], [28] Pravda, [29] (SME), [30] (sport.aktuality.sk) etc. etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Failure of WP:SNG is not a valid reason for deletion, while failure of both WP:GNG and WP:SNG is.Antigng (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coach articles are very rare in tennis... usually they are former notable players when they are notable. Otherwise requirements are any of the following that the player achieved while coached by the person in question:

The player has reached the final of or won one of the professional Grand Slam tournaments.
The player has entered the ATP or WTA rankings top-10 for at least one week.
The player was member of a champion team competing in a Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Hopman Cup (reserve players and team captains do not count).
The player has won an ATP Masters 1000 or WTA Premier event and has reached at least one other final in Masters 1000 or WTA Premier.

I don't see any of those requirements, and that would indicate a non-notable run-of-the mill coach of which there are countless thousands. But if it can be sourced that one of the requirements happened he would be notable per wikipedia tennis project.

Reply Your rationale is not inline with our notability guideline. According to WP:N, a topic is considered notable if meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. Antigng (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is in line with the notability guideline and nsports. It's just that in some cases a person also meets GNG which trumps the specific tennis protocol. Maybe he is a very unique person and he meets the GMG requirement. He does not meet it for anything he has done for tennis. If he has all kinds of articles written specifically about him as opposed to a mention that he was Cibulkova's coach for awhile, that might make him meet GNG. But for his tennis abilities he needs to meet that bare minimum. Otherwise every coach would be in here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Really close call but I'm swayed by the sources presented by Vejvančický that this individual passes GNG even if he doesn't meet the SNG low bar for athletes and even if articles on tennis coaches are "rare." A figure of national importance in his home country, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made in over 14 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Stratton

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

Subject fails notability test. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Raj Comics. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goldheart

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

Unsure what this is trying to say. Seems like it can be redirected to the name of the company and also has a opinion of the comic instead of it being about the comics. Either delete, userfy or redirect. Wgolf (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 00:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raj Comics. Not sure that there's really significant coverage of this character. However, it's entirely possible that there are non-English sources available for use, so I think a redirect would be better than deletion. Plus, it seems like it might be a useful search term for fans of the comics. Judging by results on Google News, Raj Comics itself looks quite notable, but I'm unconvinced about their individual superheroes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghayal Once Again

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

Film not yet in principal photography, per WP:NOTFILM. GoldenRing (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Who told you that Ghayal Once Again is "not yet in principal photography"? I can provide you some links where you will find "on set pictures and news" of the film. Here they are:

except these there is many more sites in the internet which can provide you more news and pictures from the set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniya94 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - the nomination was based on my reading of the sources in the article. The Times of India source you quote above clearly contradicts my nomination. Someone please close this as withdrawn. GoldenRing (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per nom's own request, withdrawal, and sources showing filming as having begun. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayal Njanalla

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

Film not yet in principal photography, per WP:NOTFILM. GoldenRing (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Principal photography has begun. Check this link. --Alfasst (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this was my (mis-?) reading of the sources used in the article. Admins, please close this as speedy keep / withdrawn. GoldenRing (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: "Ayal Njanalla" "Ayal Njanalla"

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaimaa Sabagh

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

WP:NOTNEWS GoldenRing (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Even the Spanish wiki has basically no info at all. Not notable Wgolf (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Miserably fails both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT Jcmcc450 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brace Arquiza

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

I put a prod up not realizing (or rather I forgot) that I put a BLP prod up and a anonymous IP took it down (well refs were added though) anyway this seems to be a unotble actor who falls under too soon. Wgolf (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm a bit on the fence on this one. He apparently has had a few acting roles in various series, but they aren't exactly the major roles that would satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. For example, as far as I can find, he's only done an episode of Maalaala Mo Kaya as well as supporting roles in various teleseryes. He hasn't been the subject of reliable coverage either (heck, he even lacks coverage from non-independent sources). Most of what I could find are fanpages. As an anecdote, I can confirm that he has several fans over here and he trends on Twitter on occasion, but neither of these are good claims to notability. No prejudice against recreation once he gets more roles, roles which can be considered main roles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtrayhead

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

Non-notable band. Has been tagged for notability since 2011. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was not able to find any sources confirming notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made in over 14 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brokenkites

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2015 (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) 04:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coxs Corner, Monmouth County, New Jersey

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND. Cannot be found on GNIS, and no geo-coordinates were placed on the article to help find it on a map. The only source is the unreliable New Jersey Locality Search. No reliable source could be found to verify this as a once-populated place (or any place at all). Magnolia677 (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for nominator: How did you determine that the official state database of place names for New Jersey is an unreliable source? Why would you ask for this entry to be deleted rather than be converted into a redirect. How was I able to find the Arcadia Publishing article in a few nanoseconds, and you were not able to find it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It shows up in Zillow and Mapquest and other location based services so it is a real place, if locations are inherently notable, so is this place. It also shows up in an Arcadia book. "The tiny hamlet Coxs Corner surrounds the juncture. Although the Cox family had been in Upper Freehold since the 17th century, the author has not seen this placename on a map prior to 1917." There are three entities in New Jersey in three counties with this name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The place exists as described above by Richard. Therefore, there is no reason to delete it. It might be argued that, based on notability guidelines, it could be redirected to the geography section of Upper Freehold, the township within which it resides, but no reason exists to completely remove. Famartin (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I would suggest to the original creator of the article that the two source guideline be followed; many articles by User:Tinton5 only have one source listed, which invites deletion. Famartin (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TNT delete The real problem is this: if you go to the described location, there is no there there. That is, it's not an "unincorporated community"; it's just a crossroads with a couple of houses, and a little bit away, a tractor dealer. Well, and apparently an office park is being built there, judging from this url which can be seen on a sign in front of the tractor place. Taking every placename stuck on a map at face value produces a lot of largely spurious articles— not so much that the places don't "exist", but rather that what we say about them isn't really true. We could write something of an article about this placename, but about the only things from the current article which is true is the description of its location. Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - As the nominator of this deletion, I'm pleased that one reliable source has been provided to show this is a real place. That being said, my threshold for the creation of a stand-alone article is that I can find the settlement listed on GNIS as a "populated place" (not as a "locale"). I've created several articles about ghost towns in Mississippi, and chose not to add many former plantations, which were listed on GNIS as a locale (somewhere I read this was based on consensus). The question may be, what is the threshold for inclusion as a stand-alone article on Wikipedia? User:Mangoe's comment is well taken. This may need a fresh discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ask for deletion and not argue to make it a redirect through the talk page? You have not addressed this yet, so I am asking again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are seven historic homes here if this is correct. But the good news is that "The two houses on the corner are on the wrong corners as far as lining up the intersection" and "in order to align the intersection, one or both of these houses may have to be bought by the county and demolished" so there is hope yet for anyone wanting to get rid of this article. Thincat (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this is not an incorporated place, it would help to actually look at WP:GEOLAND, which Magnolia677 references to justify deletion - "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally-recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." GNIS is a reliable and verifiable source, but it is not sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. New Jersey Locality Search is also a reliable and verifiable source, but it too is not sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. The article for Fair Play, New Jersey created by Magnolia677 here with only a GNIS source does not meet the WP:GEOLAND notability standard. The article for Coxs Corner under discussion here did not meet this standard as created. I concur with those who specify a minimum two-source standard, and this is what the definition of "multiple, independent reliable sources" would appear to require. Under this clear definition of WP:GEOLAND, the original versions of the Fair Play and Coxs Corner articles should each have been turned into redirects to the parent municipality article (as Magnolia677 would seem to agree here, though he offers no acceptable rationale for deletion rather than turning it into a redirect). Data from GNIS is duplicated in other sources -- such as Google Maps, Mapquest and Zillow, among many other such mapping and location-based search sites -- and the use of a GNIS source combined with one of these GNIS mirrors does not constitute a second independent source. The book source added to the Coxs Corner article by RAN is a second independent source here and that meets this bare minimum multiple source standard, which is why the article as it currently exists should be retained per WP:GEOLAND. Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Fair Play, New Jersey didn't meet the notability standards when it was first created. In that case, editors should attempt to improve the article, or nominate it for deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Fair Play is now a healthy article. This one may be too. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Play is another "no there there" place name. If you look at any of the maps used as citations, not a single one that I can see has the place name on the map! The intersection in question is just that, and nothing more. Mangoe (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will open this to anyone: Is the New Jersey Locality Search at nj.gov unreliable? Or is this nomination really about something else, and I can ignore the statement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliable. The issue of a perceived lack of reliability is solely in the mind of one editor. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen others suggest both the NJ State Locator and GNIS are unreliable, but I disagree with them. Are errors possible? Sure, most works have some errors. Is most of the information correct? Yes, it would certainly seem to be. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Most of the unincorporated stubs could probably be expanded into non-stubs given adequate research. Notability does include the entire history of the site, so even if a location is not notable "now" it may have been (probably was) in the past. Of course, many of the smaller and more historic stubs probably don't have a lot of information on-line, so that would require (gasp) reading books and newspapers. Famartin (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only practical use for the List of New Jersey Local Names is for locating which township a city or town is in. For any other use, it is of low accuracy. The New Jersey database lists cities, towns, rivers, mountaintops, and so forth, but doesn't differentiate between types of geographic locations. Included in that database you will find "Pond Run" in Hamilton Township, Mercer County, which GNIS lists as a stream; "Duck Island" in Hamilton Township, Mercer County, which GNIS lists as an island; "The Alligator" in Jackson Township, Ocean County, which GNIS lists as a "locale" (a locale is NOT a populated place); and my favorite, "Apple Pie Hill" (you can look that one up yourself!). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this unreliable? I still do not understand. Yes, it lists those things you pointed out, but they are not typographical errors. I think you are trying to say that the database doesn't have the level of detail that you would prefer. That is not an issue of reliability. These are historic geographic features or historical hamlets that appear in historic records of the state. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've already discussed the Pond Run and Duck Island situations previously. Pond Run was a hamlet; historic maps make this clear. Duck Island is considered a section of Trenton (and, in fact, is no longer an island). Famartin (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with GNIS (and one guesses the NJ site) isn't accuracy per se; it is and has always been notability. The mere knowledge of a placename is not sufficient evidence of notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I grant that. However, the lack of a current Wikipedia article, or an article's existence as merely a stub, is also not grounds of qualifying it as non-notable. Such a determination requires significant searching and research. Famartin (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow...looking at this page now, it's incredible how much it expanded, thanks to many. At first, sure it may have been subject to deletion due to lack of third party sources, but now at its current state, even with a picture nonetheless, it definitely warrants an article. No one mentioned, but Coxs Corner is even signed on I-195 exit 11. It gets highly criticized due to its funny name, when locals pass by there. Tinton5 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - This article should be redirected, and it's information merged into the Wrightsville, New Jersey article.

This article states that Cox's Corner "is at the juncture of County Route 524 and County Route 43". So is Wrightsville (mentioned in the article). Here is Wrightsville's GNIS entry. Click on ACME Mapper and look at the TOPO map.
The article states, "Wrightsville just east of Cox’s Corner". To support this, the article lists two sources:
- The first source, published by the State of New Jersey, acknowledges in THREE places that Wrightsville IS Cox's Corner (pages 4, 10 and 27).
- The second source states "Cox's Corner in Upper Freehold Township. Monmouth County, a location later known as Wrightsville."

Did I miss something?

This source states: "Cox's Corner was inexplicably renamed Wrightsville".
This dialogue from what appears to be some smart New Jersey cookies refers to the marker at the settlement's location: "Cox's Corner at Imlaystown-Hightstown Road and Rt. 524 in Wrightsville. This one is set in stone."
Only this NPS nomination form differentiates Wrightsville from Cox's Corner, but it's confusing when you read it (to me anyway).
I have another concern. The article states, "the first appearance of Cox's Corner on a New Jersey map was in 1917". Really? The source cited states "although the Cox family had been in Upper Freehold since the 17th century, the author has not seen this placement on a map prior to 1917". Where's this New Jersey map, from an author publishing his book through Arcadia?

Redirect. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a separate proposal from deletion. That said, there is a decent argument for merging. I'm not sure of the rules on this, but you might have to wait for this debate to conclude before making a separate suggestion to merge. Also, this would not involve deletion; we would still keep a redirect to Wrightsville. The name Cox's Corner obviously has usage. Famartin (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I voted keep above). I think there is a good case for merging Cox's Corner, Monmouth County, New Jersey and Wrightsville, New Jersey in some way. At the present time they certainly refer to the same place. In brief, historically Cox's Corner was founded first, then Wrightsville farmstead was established very near to the east, then Wrightsville stopped being called by a distinct name, now the people who live in the region of the two original farmsteads call the whole area Cox's Corner[31][32] and map makers and some NJ authorities seem to call it Wrightsville. The most interesting document is in the NRHP nomination written by the owner of a house that was undoubtedly built in a location known as Wrightsville at the time it was built. "On 19th century maps the small cluster of roadside houses near the Meeting House [i.e. 0.3 miles E of the crossroads] was identified as 'Wrightsville.' The name fell into disuse but reappeared on modern maps as the (erroneous) label for the Cox's Corner intersection, which is actually a short distance to the west along the same road. Recently, to our surprise, Wrightsville – which no longer exists as an entity – has been resurrected on the large signs for Exit 11 of Interstate 195."https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/87002561_text PS: I am familiar with this problem in Scotland where maps and road signs often get place names "wrong" according to the locals. Thincat (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Giacona

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

Not notable. Won two awards in Marin County, California, and that is about it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the standard for sartists. No signify. criticism published f his work; no works in major museums. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Weber

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

Non-notable local TV program host lacking non-trivial references. Article created by COI - appears to be a vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is a mess and the COI of the creator is apparent, but here's a 1998 Chicago Tribune article that goes into some detail about Weber and his radio/TV career, describing him as having been "a Chicago radio celebrity during the 1960s." Full cite: Nina A. Koziol, "Hollywood And Vines: Ted Weber Once Rubbed Elbows With The Rich And Famous, But Now His Streator Garden Is The Star", Chicago Tribune, September 6, 1998. The article might be salvageable if more like this can be turned up, especially if there are reliable sources to verify the assertion that his show was syndicated nationally. Weber's website has a few other links to news articles, but the other articles only seem to mention his broadcast career in passing as they talk about his gardens, a local attraction in Streator, Illinois. [33] A caveat for searchers: GBooks turns up numerous references in Billboard to Ted Weber in Chicago during the relevant time frame, and some of them are references to the subject, but many mention a presumably different person, the sales manager at WGN. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly part of a promotional vanity push involving the creation of several new articles, probably by Mr. Weber himself. I had to dig deeply to find two mentions of the subject in 1960 copies of Billboard, both fleeting, and neither indicating any broadcast outside Chicago, although they did mention producers of On the Line were shopping for other markets. His programs fail WP:TVSHOW, and I'm afraid Mr. Weber fails general notability himself. Blackguard 07:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Banks (American actor)

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As explained here, we discussed the notability of the subject. Please check your sources. Karlhard (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. While an actor could become notable merely for starring in commercials, this case is unclear to me. In fact, several actors are famous solely because they became notable for being the "Rollover Mom", or the "Charmin's Mr. Whipple", the guy from "University of Farmer's" who won an Oscar, or "Flo from Progessive". I don't recognize his face. What commercials are we talking about? Bearian (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. K. Simmons was notable long before the Farmer's Insurance commercials. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article speaks for itself: he has appeared in several commercials for notables companies such as Samsung, Best Buy, EA Games, Mitsubishi among others, having a national and international rotation. In 2014, he co-wrote the film CUT! in 2014. If this article is deleted, we need to delete over hundreds of articles too but specially John Callen, which I took as an example to write this one. Karlhard (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the perhaps tens of thousands of actors who have appeared in commercials for notable companies, what percentage of them would you say have been written up in the media or become household names? Was CUT! a notable film? IMDB shows that it went almost straight-to-DVD. Regarding comparisons to other articles, take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is appearing on over a hundred TV Commercials for notable companies not notable? (check WP:BIAS) Karlhard (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nik thestunned 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Article creator has had several warnings about promotional editing and has had many promotional articles deleted already--see what he has "cleaned up" from his talk page [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Fails GNG and NACTOR. The article has no independent references, ~~and the IMDb link does not support the claim that he wrote CUT.~~ (The link at the page is to the wrong movie.) In those few cases where an actor became famous for commercials, it's because they were the FOCUS of a high-profile ad campaign - not because they appeared in lots of different commercials for different products. --MelanieN (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP with zero reliable sources; mentioned film is non-notable and no-one appears to have written about his prolific commercial career. Nik thestunned 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Observado.org

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

This article has multiple issues which remained unresolved in the last few years. Most importantly, the notability of the website has not been established. – Editør (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 11:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Editør (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent evidence of notability (see WP:INTERNET) TheBlueCanoe 13:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are a fair number of cites on Google Scholar, indicating that scientists are using the data. For example, this paper from the Journal of Applied Ecology, and this guide for using the data in the International Waterbird Census. I didn't find an in-depth profile in a newspaper, which I would have preferred, but there were some hits for the smartphone app. Also many blog-type hits from around the world, which don't count for notability but are what you would expect for a "citizen science" site. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Editør (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2015 (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) 21:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onefitmusic

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

Not sure about the notability or how much of this is real. Also sounds like a big old advertisement. Wgolf (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guide me how to make it stop sound like an advertisment. It's supposed to sound like what it is, an information page. Nivea has a wikipedia page and it even says how much it sells. These pages have no information related to brand, price, or selling. It is information. And if it does not look real, the information can be checked out. For example, you can look into the professional profile of the person this page is about. (Linkedin) and the websites where she publshed. F or example, SoundCloud only accepts original releases, no copyrights and names its users as "artists, creators, singers" Evry publication is liiscenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauladima91 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe it's a real entity, but what is certain is that there is no reliable sources to back it up. Only social networks (Pinterest, Facebook, GPlus, Linkedin) and music sharing platforms (Mixcloud, Soundcloud) hits ending one page of results. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 01:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haidar Barbouti

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

Owner of a local shopping center, ultimately non-notable. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMHO seems more promotional than anything, No evidence of notability Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 05:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Philip DeFranco#Merchandise. Anyone is free to merge any content that isn't already covered in the main article from the history behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil DeFranco Networks & Merchandise

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

Promotional, already covered by the Phil DeFranco article. Gamaliel (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Philip DeFranco#Merchandise. Promotional spinoff. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Philip DeFranco#Merchandise per MelanieN. I got a headache from seeing three articles on mostly the same thing. With the merge/redirect, do leave the categories on this page for clarity in the category tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] [static.isu.org/media/155035/1886-sandp-id-sys-new-novice-figure-skating-guidelines-2014.pdf/ ISU Communication No. 1886]

[2] ttp://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/party_registration/overview.htm

[1]

[1]