< 4 July	6 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stephanie Adams. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goddessy Organics[edit]

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

Advertising. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 23:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lancome only has 8 references, none of which come from major sources. Clinique only has 5, but 3 really because 2 are from its own website. The Goddessy Organics article has 20 references, all of which prove the company's notability and come from sources that are independent of the subject's corporate websites. References are directly from Conde Nast, Style Blazer, Price of Business, Boston Edge, Yahoo Finance, etc. and are objective third party articles, not from Goddessy and not Goddessy advertising. Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. We are not evaluating this article in comparison to others. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wholly non-notable brand, poor ref's, likely WP:COI - Wikipedia is not a business directory and promotion like this is unacceptable the panda ₯’ 10:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "likely" conflict of interest. I have zero interest in the company. My interest are my contributions to Wikipedia. Sohoforgotpassword (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Stephanie Adams. The sources make a good case for notability of the founder, but not for the company. My assessment of the sources is below. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. non-notable blog containing a quote from the founder
2. local-region AM radio interview
3. blog about domain names, not relevant
4. Parade magazine - trivial mention
5. Net worth - niche publication, article about founder, trivial mention of company
6. StyleBlazer - another niche publication, mention of 1 product in a longer list
7. Fashion Affair magazine cover art - does not demonstrate significant coverage, and makes no sense as a reference
8. Edge - trivial mention in a list
9. LaSplash - this is an advertisement, not coverage
10. goodenoughmother - interview with founder, not coverage of company
11. sunnyskyz - self-published blog article posted by founder
12. LaSplash, again - description of one product in a larger list, essentially trivial mention
13. madamenoir - coverage of founder, not the company
14. Your Health Journal - interview with author, no coverage of company
15. Yahoo Finance - coverage of founder, not company
16. New Telegraph - 1 quote from founder among over 100 quotations, trivial mention

Redirect to Stephanie Adams. A small mention is already in the Adams article, and that's pretty much all that's needed. -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephanie Adams; I went through the sources and agree entirely with Amatulic. --bonadea contributions talk 20:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - absolutely no justification for a stand-alone promo-spam article. One of the interviews with the subject's owner says it all - "Adams has been featured in and on numerous magazine covers" - she has; not the company (which doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH). Banner's concerned are well-founded and Amatulić's analysis is comprehensive. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as G11 and redirect to Stephanie Adams]. --Bejnar (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zareef Minty[edit]

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

Was a WP:Proposed deletion since 1st July, prod removed today without comment - not entirely sure that WP:PRODBLP applies hence AfD nom. This is a vanity article for a WP:NN student. The refs do not appear entirely reliable: local/promotional websites, some sources not found, subject not cited etc. Claims are not supported: the website of the Patriotic Alliance - a controversial project by a convicted fraudster - names Minty as one of two "Youth League Leaders" not the "National Youth President"; no sources found to support claims about his clothing company. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a non-notable college student who makes T-shirts and organizes for a tiny political party that is less than a year old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources offered are basically a bunch of trivial mentions and do not make a sufficient case for notability. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of decent WP:RS. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sonoma County Fairgrounds. It looks as though the most relevant information has already been merged, so all that's left is to redirect this article there. Deor (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Pavilion[edit]

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

I've spent time looking for reliable secondary sources that cover Grace Pavilion substantially, I can't find any. I feel that this specific building, despite it's fabulous architecture, fails GNG - I can see it perhaps being mentioned in the county fair article (when it's created). SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a merge to Sonoma County Fairgrounds? --MelanieN (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Funny, I created that article right after I posted this, and totally spaced mentioning it. ~~I'll close this discussion and open a merge suggestion.~~ Thanks User:MelanieN :) SarahStierch (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I know that if I post a merge request it'll never get looked at there. Now that it's here, if we can agree to merge (and I sort of already have, using an image of it) then this can be closed and merge can take place without hoping someone will notice on the Grace talk page. :) SarahStierch (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis that it's already very briefly mentioned in the Sonoma County Fairgrounds article. Anything more than that would be undue, considering no-on has identified a single independent source that covers the Center in any detail. Sionk (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:ACADEMIC. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No-Hee Park[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a dentist and academic, relying entirely on primary sources with not so much as a hint of reliable sourcing. He would most likely have a legitimate claim of notability if the article were properly sourced, but it's the quality of sourcing that can be provided to verify that a person passes a Wikipedia inclusion guideline which gets them past that guideline, and not the mere unsourced or primary-sourced assertion itself. (Also a probable conflict of interest, as the article was initially created by User:Schoolofdent; dominant followup contributor User:Smilyboy also raises my suspicions — dentist, smily, see the theme? — but isn't as easy to be sure about.) I'm happy to withdraw this nomination if the article can be cleaned up with real sourcing, but it's not entitled to stick around in this form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the BLP suffers from promotional bloat there is a clear pass of WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - subject's work is well cited, indicating notability. Chop to a stub if necessary, but AfD is not for cleanup. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No question that he meets WP:ACADEMIC: Dean of a major dental school, and Distinguished Professor at both that school and the associated medical school. I have trimmed a little of the puffery and duplication. --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arka (Language)[edit]

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability or even existence. Staglit (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search for "seren arbazard" "arka" turns up a few hits, so the language is apparently real, but I see no evidence of notability. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability failure. Yes, the language and at least one of his books exists. I found it on Amazon Japan and there are a few mentions of his constructed language on Twitter - all of which point to dead links. However, beyond that, I could find no significant topic coverage in reliable independent sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Staberinde (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY based on Google search and weak citations in the article. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTABILITY –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not all constructed languages are notable, sorry. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTABILITY. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Société_Générale#Lyxor_Asset_Management. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyxor Asset Management[edit]

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

(Repeatedly redirected by several editors and recreated by a WP:SPA.)

Though incorrectly described in the article as an investment company (mutual fund, closed-end fund or UIT), Lyxor sells funds, making them an investment management company. As such, it seems their notability would fall under commercial organizations (rather than products or services, as a fund would).

For publicly traded companies, we expect there to be significant coverage available, through coverage aimed at the investment market (i.e., "Based on stranger than expected first quarter results, we rate Blue Sky Corp. a strong buy..."). However, Lyxor is wholly owned by Société Générale.

Lyxor is clearly not a franchise or chain.

Thus, we are left with the primary criteria for organizations, WP:CORPDEPTH. The short form explanation is, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."

This article currently cites one source, an announcement from Société Générale discussing the launch of Lyxor. To stand alone, the article clearly needs substantial coverage in independent reliable sources showing notability independent of the parent company. As no such coverage seems to exist, I recommend a redirect to Société Générale. SummerPhD (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources like Financial News[1], Fundweb [2], Bloomberg News [3] and Money Marketing[4]. This is after only a few seconds of searching. There is probably a lot more coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The links mentioned above are routine announcements and so far I am finding only more of the same (Person joins, Person leaves, Fund launch, Parent reallocates fund, etc.) in searches on Highbeam. AllyD (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have interwikied to equivalent (basically the same) articles on other language Wikipedias (they were previously linked to the Société Générale page, which may be the best outcome here), though they are little better with regard to demonstration of notability. The French page does list various awards, though none look notable in their own right. AllyD (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Société_Générale. No evidence found that this subsidiary is notable in its own right, and there is already adequate coverage in the parent article at Société_Générale#Lyxor_Asset_Management, although supported by a dead link reference. AllyD (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WeWorked[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:PRODUCT. Might be good software, but there aren't enough sources out there for notability purposes. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. The PC magazine coverage is too brief to be considered significant, and a search did not turn up any more RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tauatomo Mairau[edit]

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

Non notable claimant who is dead and likely to not receive anymore news coverage. The only notable thing found in reliable sources is his death. Nor do we have articles about the other Tahitians claimants at this point. He isn't even from the Pomare family line. KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to be a descendant of Tahiti’s Queen Pomare IV. "Tahitians Push for 'Customary' Senate". Pacific Island Report. 31 October 2005. --Bejnar (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't state how he is a descendant. Mairau is not a name common in the Pomare Dynasty and matches Queen Pomare IV's brother-in-law instead, who was only a minor Raiatea chief.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was the prime (in terms of activity) claimant during his lifetime, and he made real efforts to right what he considered the wrongs that the French had wrought. There was coverage of his efforts during his life, as the article demonstrates, and, as is normal, his obits are a good source of information, especially since his death occurred during the Information Age and hence the obits are readily available. I rectified one book citation in the article that did not present the source page properly, and fixed a dead link. --Bejnar (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many claimants to the Tahitian throne: Joinville Pomare, the most active today, Leopold Pomare, Pakumotu and many more probably not mentioned by English sources.

Keep The coverage in the article is sufficient to meet the main notability guideline in my opinion. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. LuigiToeness (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted. A7.. Alexf^(talk) 16:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greater chimdale county man[edit]

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

Failed PROD. PROD had "Non-notable fictional character, fails WP:NFICT" for the reason. I dream of horses (T) @ 17:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as said in proposed deletion: fails WP:NFICT. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this nonsense please. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Delete. Tagged for Speedy Delete nomination. Creating user is new, currently blocked, and his/her other articles created yesterday are also on AfD or Speedy Delete... --Jersey92 (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne van Giersbergen[edit]

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

No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject appears to fail BASIC and CREATIVE. Sources fail RS. Article has a promotional tone to it. A Google did yield several interviews with blogs and websites dedicated to the heavy metal genre, but they seem to be fluff pieces and I have doubts as to their reliability as sources. It's possible though that I may be missing something. PROD was removed without explanation or evident improvement. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom based on extensive improvements in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sufficient independent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the earlier article, which seemed like an addition from well-meaning fans, without proper sourcing, the AfD is understandable. But my first clue that Giersbergen is notable was 100 pageviews/day after the article was floated in May. I found sources which are suitable for the genre (European metal bands), revamped per Heymann, and there are many suggesting she meets WP:ARTIST as well as the GNG, including interviews, reviews of her performances as well as her band's albums. Language difficulties could be a problem too, with reviews in other languages (Dutch, German, French) making it difficult for Wikipedians to confirm. That the band Xandria plays all over Europe is another sign suggesting notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Jordan[edit]

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

Subject of article does not appear to have received significant coverage from multiple secondary or tertiary reliable sources sufficient to be considered notable per general notability guideline or notability guideline specific to organizations. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete overly promotional and lacking third party sources. LibStar (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable organization. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Young (singer)[edit]

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

I cannot find any real evidence that this singer meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO or the general notability guide. There's a short biography at AllMusic to take into consideration, and it appears that HipHopDX ran a competition featuring her music, but in reality this appears to be a puff piece about an artist whose career has met with little or no success despite the obvious promotional push. — sparklism ^hey! 07:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 07:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All reference material found on the subject is either self promoted or fluff. As per nom the only strong third party piece is AllMusic. I suggest the article be deleted because it fails notability.--Canyouhearmenow 14:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article. Not sufficiently notable. At best this is WP:TOOSOON and should still be deleted. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO and I'm skeptical about whether article meets WP:GNG. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because users glance at an article that looks to be promotional, it doesn't mean it is worthy of deletion. I've cleaned up the fluff, reworded possible copyvio, and removed refs that were possibly self-published to mirror sites. Nevertheless, this article is still left with up to 8 verifiable reliable sources independent of the subject itself, and therefore passes the very basic of notability guidelines. The following are fairly lengthy interviews and/or writeups for this artist: 17 Magazine, Walmart Soundcheck Risers, HelloBeautiful.com, EastEndFashionMagazine.com, Family-to-Family, and a brief but worthy interview with Fashions Night Out. Cheers ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not third-party references and therefore don't add to notability. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is just too ignorant a comment to bother arguing with. But if you would like to argue that fact, point me to where it is written. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While certainly credible as a source, interviews are basically self-promotion. Not independent of subject, and one does not gain notability through mere self-promotion. "Too ignorant a comment to bother arguing with" also comes off as rude. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cricket02 - Thank you for working on the article. I reviewed it and still think the subject fails WP:NOTABILITY and this article is at best WP:TOOSOON and should be Deleted. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Cunningham Anderson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors . those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage. All I could was one line mentions confirming he was an ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One minor embassy covering two insignificant island states does not give notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an ambassador, which, in my opinion and that of others, qualifies an individual for inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability of ambassadors. Does this person get sufficient coverage to meet WP:BIO? what sources have you found. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - this person served as ambassador during an extremely crucial time in history - the Cuban revolution. Could more sources be found? See also Canada–Cuba relations. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While ambassadors are not inherently notable, I concur with Bearian that this was an important post when Anderson was appointed in September 1959. I hope someone with access to a good Canadian library can help fill in more about him. I added one more source to the article. --Bejnar (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Age UK. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Paterson[edit]

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

I am not convinced of the notability of the person or of the position of "Internet Champion" DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the three reliable sources present in the article, there is coverage in Age UK (different article), Wired, CWU, Channel 4, Slough Observer. "Internet Champion" is a term coined by Age UK, a notable UK based charity derived from Help the Aged that has run in Britain for decades and widely known in schools. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question to be asked is: Would the man-in-the-street, upon reading about this "Internet champion", be interested to find out more about him? If the answer is Yes then the article should be retained. The question of the "notability" of a person is highly subjective. If no consensus is reached as to whether Keith Paterson's being crowned "Internet Champion" by a well-established and highly-reputable institution such as Age UK be deleted, I suggest that the article be preserved. Peminatweb (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally feel inspired when I hear about older people that achieve even when what they achieve is an basic looking text based website. I don't think it is a relevant question if people would want to know more (I was pleased juat to hear of an older guy that was getting on with stuff) ... but yes I did. I read that he was deaf and went straight to a search on "Keith Paterson deaf". Anyway, that's the sentimental vote. The page only got 67 views last month. Gregkaye (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because it's inspirational, doesn't mean it's notable. Lacks notoriety. My father was inspirational too. WP:BIO. sig1068 — Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it does satisfy WP's guidelines on Notability which states, inter alia: the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. Unquote. Peminatweb (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. 2 of the keep !votes amount to ILIKEIT, and do not constitute a policy-based assertion of notability. The sources cited in the other keep are merely promotional or local coverage of the event, and not indicative of notability. Please note that the "wired-gov-uk" source is not Wired UK but a press release site. The deletes are a bit short hand in their comments, but do point out the essential problem here - lack of independent reliable sources to support the subject's notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally agree that Wired-Gov can be considered a press release site in the same manner as Crunchbase and PRWeb. Bear in mind that practically anyone anywhere can go to a commercial PR service and say just about whatever they want, but a public sector body has to have some form of accountability, and has no need for self promotion because I would assume it would not be in their interests to do so. I can't see any mention of the site on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, which I would have assumed to be the case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I think that the award itself probably has enough coverage to be notable, and material on Paterson as a recipient of said award could be merged into such a hypothetical article. If I have time later today I will create such a stub. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of enough consensus for "Keep" (the other Keeps are indeed rather WP:ILIKEITish without producing concrete sources that would help the cause), I'm happy to go for second choice with a merge / redirect to Age UK per WP:BIO1E. The topic of "Internet Champions" (hey, I didn't choose the name!) is I feel of encyclopaedic importance, even if the individual award recipients is tenuous. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to see the requisite coverage needed to establish notability. In terms of usability of "wired-gov-uk" noted above, it's a press release. That it is from government doesn't somehow make it not a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as per User:Ritchie333, to Age UK as described in WP:BIO1E. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn by nominator). Re-closing for clarity (non-admin close). St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies[edit]

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

Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies seems to be the violation of CSD.G11 and is based on only primary sources. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 14:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies is nothing more than a means of promotion on Wikipedia as well as it is lacking the fundamental policy of references and sources. Contents in the article such as Institute Address and Faculty is such an example. Where at the most of places Citation is needed or either fulfilled by unsupported primary links. D Mi^™ 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recognised degree-awarding institution. We invariably keep these. Being a bad article is not a valid reason for deletion. That's cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are lots of institution in every conner of the street it does not mean that they hold a meritorious reorganization. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 10:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does, per long-standing consensus and precedent at afd. Degree-awarding institutions are considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with CutestPenguin, Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement. INPanda ^Talk 10:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Copyedited and cleaned to remove advertising. See how easy that was? Much easier than nominating for deletion! This nomination and the opinions above simply demonstrate a sadly common misunderstanding of afd, which is for deletion of articles on non-notable subjects, not for cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was more of an advertisement before your edition and cleanup, but even after your contribution to this article the references is lacking. Wikipeida require evidences and support of reliable sources where this article have "0" references. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 11:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, for degree-awarding institutions proof of existence is generally all that's needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems rather odd to me that all three of the delete votes come from accounts that were created at more or less the same time and edit in very similar fields. May be a coincidence, but needs to be highlighted I think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- In your recent edits you have removed most of the contents from the article Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies. You are not aware of the conditions of fraudulent in the countries like India. One of the world's famous Amity University and IIPM was charged heavy plenty for offering UN-approved courses. My concern and cause of nomination for deletion was lack of references. I will withdraw my deletion request, please help me by adding references. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 12:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Malahide#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II National School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malahide per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - although the article is not notable enough to exist, as Davey2010 states the precedent is to redirect to (in this case) the encompassing local authority. This makes sense because the school is still a valid and likely to be used search term. BethNaught (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Castletroy. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milford National School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Castletroy per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Castletroy per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Castletroy per Davey2010 and Kudpung. Doing so makes sense because, although not notable, the school is still a likely and valid search term and some information may be imparted by the main article. BethNaught (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborator (software)[edit]

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

Recently created article that does not show the notability of the subject and the subject does not meet WP:NPRODUCTS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or redirect to company, SmartBear Software - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search for 'SmartBear Collaborator' turned up blog and forum posts, but no significant RS coverage with the possible exception of this Dr Dobbs article [5] which is largely repeating company PR and alone is not sufficient to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA with a name similar to the company, so is COI/promotional.Dialectric (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Collaborator (software), seems to be the violation of CSD.G11 and should be deleted immediately. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article and not sufficiently notable. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mindfulness meditation[edit]

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

"Mindfulness meditation" is a Wikipedia:Content forking of mindfulness (psychology). "Mindfulness meditation" properly means Vipassana, while "Mindfulness meditation" is now about "mindfulness", which is being covered by a range of articles: Mindfulness, Mindfulness (psychology), Vipassana, to name only three of them. Duplicating the existing articles does not add anything new to Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page may be replaced with this redirect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the page also started as a redirect [6]. Basically, "Mindfulness meditation" is based on one article in Time Magazine. It was substantially enlarged by copying material from "Mindfulness (psychology)" [7]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mindfulness meditation is a broad and worthy topic. "The meditation literature describes many different meditative practices (Goleman, 1977; Shapiro & Walsh, 1984). Most reviewers of this literature have referred to two basic types of meditation practice: concentrative meditation and mindfulness meditation (Smith, 1975)."[8] It has made the front cover of Time.[9] There are many types of sitting mediation - mantra, transcendental, loving kindness, Buddhist, insight, Vipassanā, Tibetan, Zen, shikantaza, satipatthana, etc etc. Each of these depends upon, and enhances, a degree of mindfulness, but each also has a different focus, and different goals or purposes (calm, Buddhist enlightenment, insight, positive emotions, martial arts success, etc). Overall, though, the literature - modern Western, and ancient Eastern - agrees that a major subdivision of the world of sitting meditation comes under the overall heading of "mindfulness meditation". This is not just a subdivision of modern psychology, nor is it always related to what is meant by the Pāli Buddhist term Vipassanā. It is a worthy topic in its own right, not 'owned' in present day English usage by any of these factions, yet it is practised, mentioned and discussed by millions of English speakers every day.. --Nigelj (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: funny, the headline for the Times-article is "The Mindful Revolution", not "The mindfulness Meditation Revolution". In the various types of meditation you mention, "mindfulness" is the translation of sati, on which there is also already an article. What you are calling here "mindfulness meditation" is "insight meditation", which is covered by Vipassana; while the article from Marlatt and Kristeller uses the term "mindfulness meditation" to refer to what is commonly known as "mindfulness". So you seem to be mixing up various meanings.

The "mindfulness meditation" article as it is now is about the western practice of "mindfulness". So what exactly do you propose "mindfulness meditation" should be about, that's not already being covered by existing articles? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know? I wondered if someone would clutch at that straw. The full heading of the Time article is "Health | Meditation | The Mindful Revolution" It's an article about a 'mindful revolution' going on in the field of 'meditation', which itself is a sub-field of 'health', according to them it appears.[10] Your views (and mine) about what "mindfulness meditation" is and is not, and what should be given WP:DUE weight in the article, are content matters, which should be dealt with on the article talk page. We are here to gauge consensus on the WP:NOTABILITY of the topic, so that we can settle down to editing it normally and collaboratively, and looking at the sources regarding issues like that, without a small group of people blanking it and shouting 'Delete' or 'Merge' all the time. --Nigelj (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Content matters"? If you want to discuss notability, we must first be clear what the topic is of which the notability is being dicussed. If the topic is "meditation as a subfield of health", then we're talking about western mindfulness, which is already covered in Mindfulness, duplicateed in Mindfulness (psychology), and "triplicated in Mindfulness meditation. So, how many articles on the same topic do you want? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the topic of the article was fairly evidently 'Mindfulness meditation'. Where you got the idea that it was "meditation as a subfield of health" is unclear, and not particularly relevant here. --Nigelj (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mindfulness meditation" as in the popular secular practice, or "mindfulness meditation" as in Buddhist Vipassana meditation? In both cases, the topic has already been covered. "'meditation', which itself is a sub-field of 'health'" was mentioned by you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned "'meditation', which itself is a sub-field of 'health'" as part of a description of what the Time article was about, not what the Wikipedia article ought to be about. I also followed the mention with two provisos, "according to them" and "it appears". I do not find this form of discussion interesting. --Nigelj (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a pdf of the Time-article. Quote: "Mindfulness is rooted in Eastern philosophy, specifically Buddhism. But two factors set it apart". So, the Time's article is not about Buddhist Vipassana, but about western secular mindfulness. Which is covered now by three separate articles. The interesting part of the article is "MINDFULNESS GOES MAINSTREAM", about the growing popularity of (western) mindfulness. That's really interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that the page be reverted to a version which redirects. This is ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which means that another kind of procedure/discussion should be followed? Which one? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Reverting and Alternatives to Deletion. Andrew (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But then we come back to redirecting or merging, c.q. gaining concencus, as in Talk:Mindfulness#Merger proposal? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:MEDRS compliant sources such as Clinical Psychology Review (link) classify "mindfulness meditation" as a subgroup of meditation practices. In addition, NCCAM says:

"Mindfulness meditation is an essential component of Buddhism. In one common form of mindfulness meditation, the meditator is taught to bring attention to the sensation of the flow of the breath in and out of the body....Mindfulness meditation and Transcendental Meditation (also known as TM) are two common forms of meditation. NCCAM-sponsored research projects are studying both types of meditation. (link)"

This is clearly a highly notable topic with significant coverage in the mainstream media. -A1candidate (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Buddhist forms of "mindfulness meditation", namely Vipassana, Satipatthana and Anapanasati already have separate articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The poster here clearly says, '"mindfulness meditation" as a subgroup of meditation practices'. You list particular examples of Buddhist meditation practices as if they are a reason not to have an overall article on a subgrouping that has had, and continues to have a lot of coverage in social media, mainstream media, personal development marketing, and academic study, as a subgroup. --Nigelj (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case you want both Buddhist Vipassana meditation and western secular mindfulness being threated in one article, that's already being done in the Mindfulness article. The term "mindfulness meditation" is ambigue, and refers to both kinds of practice. The "coverage in social media, mainstream media, personal development marketing, and academic study" is about the secular, western practice. Which is already covered in "Mindfulness", duplicated in "Mindfulness (psychology)", and triplicated in "Mindfulness meditation". So, the point is not that there shouldn't be an article on this topic; the point is that one article per topic suffices, and that there was no need to triplicate this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This paper (picked more or less at random) concludes that "Little to no relationship was found between mindfulness during meditation and everyday mindfulness across all three samples."[11] Clearly modern western scholars can see a distinction between everyday mindfulness and mindfulness meditation. That there may be material in the Mindfulness article that would be better placed in the Mindfulness meditation article at some point in the future doesn't surprise me. All media and marketing coverage certainly is not solely about "the secular, western practice". I think that we have made our positions clear now. Continuing to repeat them, with or without misrepresentations of each others' statements, will not help the closing admin to decide. Please don't make comments that include a statement what it is that you think I want, so that I don't have to keep clarifying my position. --Nigelj (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Thanks for the link; I'll read it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per discussion elsewhere.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Millicom. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tigo cash[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to be a particularly notable financial product. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Millicom, the company that owns it (Tigo redirects there). I would add it as a new subsection in the African section. Product seems to have launched in 2013 and also seems to be available in Ghana, per this [government page]. There is definitely a smattering of coverage out there, as you might expect of a well-publicized new product launch, but I didn't readily find substantive coverage to demonstrate notability. And even if it is notable, as long as content remains stub-length, I think readers are better served by including it as a section in the company article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (Being WP:BOLD here), - There's now no valid reason for deletion since Michigs found 8 sources, I'd imagine there's alot more out there too. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Moggs[edit]

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

nn unreferenced bandcruft Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unreferenced article about a notable band. Can be fixed using easily found sources: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. --Michig (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scornicești Solar Park by Power Clouds[edit]

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

Appears promotional in nature, the single provided source is a primary one making me question the notability of this article. There appears to be a small group of new editors determined that the article is kept, thus forcing an AfD. Dolescum (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for being spam, and for the obnoxious behavior of the accounts behind the article. I might reconsider if some reliable sources are adduced. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't understand the difference between this topic and Scornicești Solar Park. Do we really need two articles? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the authors of the newer article are claiming that there are two separate solar installations built by two different businesses at Scornicești. Dolescum (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - even if built by two companies, why can't we merge them? Bearian (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I tried to avoid the page to be orphan by linking to the item in question on the pages of Scornicești district on Italian and in English wikipedia. As for neutrality, I'm available for advice and anything else to make the entry as close as possible to the policy of Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giuseppe.catino (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I acted to remove from text any sentences that could make one think of a spot. if you think the entry still contains periods disagree with the policies of wikipedia, you can signal to me and I will prompt remove them. Thank you. Giuseppe.catino (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Scornicești Solar Park. If that is not possible, simply Delete as we cannot have two articles on the same topic. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious spam from an SPA, and salt this title. Selective merge into Scornicești Solar Park, but do not redirect, as this is not plausible search term. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Sara Douglass. There's some logic to the "merge with Wayfarer redemption" option too, but the available references suggest the first two trilogies were released as a six-book set and this one follows: a merge would imply a greater synchronicity than the sources presently support. Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkglass Mountain[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced stubs about a trilogy and books within it; doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. "The Infinity Gate" has unreferenced reviews actually refer to a different book ("The Serpent Bride"). Second book has no article; previously deleted for G12.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sara Douglass. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to Sara Douglass, just as Lankiveil says. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wayfarer Redemption. Wayfarer Redemption is listed (in its article) as being two trilogies. That statement is outdated. The last sentence of that article's introduction says "This sequence is followed by the Darkglass Mountain trilogy." In fact, Darkglass Mountain is a continuation of the first two trilogies. ISFDB lists the three trilogies as parts of a single combined series. Merging this into that article means there's no real problem with being, essentially, just a list of the three books with links to those books. Chaveyd (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Jacobs[edit]

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

Non-notable orphan bio with no in-line citations, the only source that seems useful is a primary source verifying where he worked. Helen Online 09:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not comply with WP:BIO. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No non-primary sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can create a good and properly referenced version, but he's not entitled to keep this in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability in the working source provided, or any found after a google search. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Green coffee extract. If anyone would like to merge content from this article, it can be accessed from the article's edit history. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 23:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Svetol[edit]

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

There are a lot of sources presented but it is not certain that any of them are reliable sources. Wikipedia's notability criteria are very low, and all we need are 2-3 good sources. If this article is to be kept, could someone present the 2-3 best sources so that we can establish notability? There are debates on the talk page about nuance of sources, but talks about details should happen after notability is established. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a propriety product without much following, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to green coffee extract Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Redirect, see below) Spam for a commercial brand of green coffee extract. The journal references in the article do not mention Svetol by name; the rest of the references range from non-reliable sources to snake-oil hype for an unproven weight loss supplement. Doc James, I respect your proposal for a merge/redirect (which preceded this AfD nomination), and maybe some of the general references could be transferred to the target article before deletion, but I don't want to see a redirect from this non-notable commercial spam. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This review mention that it is a brand name [20] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all it does. The review is not ABOUT Svetol and neither are any of the research articles. --MelanieN (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge, and then redirect. The content of the article fits well in green coffee extract and there is no need for a separate article. Standard practice is to not have articles for brand name drug formulations and to keep the content at articles titled by the active ingredient (with a few exceptions for clearly independently notable brands which have a significant history, cultural impact, etc.) Deli nk (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/Merge sourced info, where appropriate, to green coffee extract. To respond to MelanieN's valid concern, I also support the redirect, as redirects are cheap, and readers are almost certain to read the term "Svetol" somewhere on product packaging, decide to type it into the search bar, and in the case that it does redirect them to green coffee extract, they should be able find information about the papers on the efficacy (or lack thereof) and other pharmacological data on related products, rather than any commercial spam. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me. Changing my opinion to Redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete edit history then Redirect. This is obviously a non-notable article. If anything is worth merging it can be done now rather than waiting for this discussion to be over. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as User:AdventurousSquirrel said. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect A reasonable thorough search of academic literature makes it clear that there's not sufficient notability for a separate article. That said it doesn't look like there's a lot worth merging. SPACKlick (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify to Draft:Gaye O'Keefe --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaye O'Keefe[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is notable as typesetters go, having worked for TSR and other game companies for a long time on many products, and a founding member of Pacesetter. The article does have one WP:RS for her, and I suspect there are others. Failing a "keep" outcome, I recommend moving to WP:DRAFTSpace so that it can be worked on further. BOZ (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles need multiple reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy sounds like a good option, in the case that more RSs can be found to more clearly indicate notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2014). j⚛e decker ^talk 16:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Forrester[edit]

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

Page fails per Wikipedia Soap Project qualifications for a soap article. Not enough required reliable sourcing, nor enough notable real-word content for a fictional character. Delete and/or redirect to Forrester family for the time being. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Way too early for this character to have an article. As she hasn't appeared on screen yet, there isn't enough out-of-universe info available beyond the casting announcement. Fails WP:SOAPS guidelines. I think it would be best if the article was redirected to an appropriate list. If there isn't one available, then delete until she's notable. - JuneGloom Talk 23:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be early but on the official website of the bold and the beautiful it says that she will be making her first appearance on July 9, 2014. So whether the article is made early or late, it makes no sense to consider it for deletion. The rest is up to the admin. Thank you.. --Princessruby (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere on the official site does it specifically state July 9, which automatically nulls her debut date, and even then, it violates the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystalball. The character is not notable per Wikipedia Soap standards, as it doesn't feature real-world context, etc. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetheart, the official website of the bold and beautiful confirms that, Ashleigh will be making her first appearance on (Episode #6865) It seems like you don't know when the episode will air since the date is not given. Allow me to explain you. It will air on July 9, 2014. (Here's the official website which states that http://www.boldandbeautiful.com/project/ashleigh-brewer/ ) Episode #6852 aired on 23rd june 2014, Episode #6853 aired on 24th june 2014, Episode #6854 on 25th June, Episode #6855 on 26th June, Episode #6856 on 27th June, Episode #6857 on 30th June, Episode #6858 on 1st July 2014, Episode #6859 on 2nd July, Episode #6860 on 3rd July, Episode #6861 on 4thJuly, Episode #6862 on 5th July, Episode #6863 will air on 7th July, Episode #6864 on July 8th, Episode which on Wednesday will be #6865.--Princessruby (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not "sweetheart", thank you. Secondly, the source provided does not state July 9, 2014; pre-emptions could take place and the episode could not air on the "expected" date. I don't need an explanation, as I know where you're getting July 9 from, but unless the reference states July 9, 2014, it cannot be used for said-reference until episode has aired. Either way, character violates fictional notability and fails per the soap project standards. Article would last better as a sub-article in a character page for the time being until her on-air persona is much more established. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wait is over now. Ashleigh finally debuted on the bold and the beautiful on July 10, 2014. (Retracted) which is why I decided to give you one. About the sub- article part, I completely disagree with you. --Princessruby (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing resembling notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2014), which would be the perfect place to redirect the Ivy Forrester article to. The list entry can be expanded there, until a time when the character is notable enough for her own article. Such lists work really well for several other soap operas, including The Young and the Restless, EastEnders and Neighbours. - JuneGloom Talk 21:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree, JuneGloom! I think that would be the perfect place to redirect the article to until she qualifies for her own, per the standards of Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Schaeffer[edit]

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

Non-notable percussionist; fails WP:MUS. Ohc ^¡digame! 05:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MUS (section 1, number 10); has performed music for numerous works of media that are notable. Passes WP:MUS (section 1, number 1); a search at https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Steve+Schaeffer%22&tbm=nws&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22Steve+Schaeffer%22+drummer shows him as the subject of the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable ô¿ô 11:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Congreaves[edit]

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

No claim to notability. No context. A one sentence article. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 04:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a well-sourced stub which clearly passes WP:SPORT as she has played for her country.Pam D 05:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does one source exemplify "Well Sourced"? And exactly which part of WP:NSPORTS does she meet? CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 08:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CRRRays, in answer to your question, the subject satisfies the specific notability guideline of WP:NSPORTS because she played 84 games in the WNBA between 1997 and 1999 per WP:NBASKETBALL. The subject also satisfies the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG because she was the subject of at least three feature articles in the Chicago Tribune (1992), The Independent (1997), and the BBC (2012). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear claim to notability and clear context - sportsperson who represented her country internationally. We don't delete pages because they are short. Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What claim to notability? Being apart of the national team does not satisfy WP:NHOOPS. And that's why my nomination doesn't hinge on the shortness, rather the lack of claim to notability which you have not provided a source to say she is. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 08:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That "one sentence" was enough for establishing notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The one sentence says nothing special about her. Only that she was apart of a national team. Did she set a record? Was she in any way special outside having played for a national team? I would wager to guess that if she was, her article would be more than 10 words. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 08:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I developed the article. Notability more notoriously shown now. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Andrea Congreave played three seasons in the WNBA, appearing in 84 games with 58 starts. See here for more statistical details. For those of you who are not American basketball fans, the WNBA is the highest level of professional basketball played by women in the United States, and with the exception of the Olympics and the FIBA international tournaments, arguably the highest level in the world. Having played in the WNBA, the subject clearly satisfied the WP:NBASKETBALL specific notability guideline of WP:NSPORTS. I hope an interested editor will take the time to clean up and expand this article, because the subject athlete clearly deserves better. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the fact that the subject clearly satisfies the specific notability guideline of WP:NBASKETBALL, and there are at least two reliable, independent sources (BBC and The Independent) that satisfy WP:GNG, I have changed my !vote to "speedy keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a bit more skeptical of the "played on a national team" argument then most, unless the time spent on the national team involved an appearance in the Olympics or some other high-level international tournament. Nevertheless, she is definitely notable due to her time as a WNBA player, which more than satisfies the WP:NBASKETBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EJ, as I continue to read the available reliable source news articles revealed by a standard Google search, I've also discovered that she was on England's bronze medal team in the 2006 Commonwealth Games. Bottom line: she's clearly notable and there are multiple reliable sources. According to her Linked In profile, she is actually the current head coach of the Mansfield Giants (EBL2) and the University of Nottingham women's team. There appears to be plenty of material with which to work to create a fairly decent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the expansion to the article which now includes a proper claim of notability, I am withdrawing this AfD. Sorry for any inconvenience. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 19:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an AfD process helps an article to get better, and this has been a good example of that case. Thank you, sincerely. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Globalocal[edit]

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

This looks like a non-notable neologism. Note that I removed these examples which I think supports my point. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, brief search didn't find any evidence that this term is used with any regularity. Also, WP is not a dictionary. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEO, specifically: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Also seems promotional. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. --Michig (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of user interface literature[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of low utility Ohc ^¡digame! 03:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this could be a valid bibliography for the subject user interface. I've posted a pointer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies to this discussion. postdlf (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to HCI Bibliography—Dropping in via WP:WikiProject Bibliographies. I could certainly see an HCI bibliography could be notable (perhaps starting from here), but wrt the present article we're definitely into WP:TNT territory. Without annotation or taxonomy, this really is just a random list of books that might or might not have anything to do with user interfaces. This kind of subject bibliographies (as with most other bibliographies) should cite already-published bibliographies to prevent the indiscriminate-list effect. The article name is unlikely to be used as a search term, so I don't think a redirect is appropriate (unless it's to a stubbed Bibliography of Human-Computer Interaction). A move might work, but the first thing I'd do is remove the content and start over. Simplest solution is delete. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC) n.b. The HCI bibliography lists 768 books. Hmmm.... Does the HCI Bibliography have an article? Perhaps redirect it there, remove the list of books, and describe the database instead? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to HCI Bibliography: this list has huge problems with WP:SAL, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NPOV, so keeping any indication that this was here is just provoking WP:BADIDEAs. Lesser Cartographies proposed good target for this title to redirect to, so redirecting after deletion seems reasonable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add HCI Bibliography as external link on User interface. LaMona (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate and unreferenced list. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows set in London[edit]

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

Redundant – this list provides no additional useful information that cannot be found at Category:Television shows set in London.
I would nominate all the articles in Category:Lists of television series by setting citing similar rationale of redundancy. Such listcruft will forever lag behind the categories, and be a maintenance burden Ohc ^¡digame! 03:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The lists have details that mere categories can't contain. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." These list articles are also expandable. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While these could do with additional details and sources, the existence of categories isn't a good reason to delete them. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined lists with inclusion criteria. And per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, categorization is something different. --Soman (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim that lists must necessarily lag behind categories is false. For example, consider the TV show W1A, which is named after a London postcode. It's not in either currently and so it's a matter of luck which gets done first. Andrew (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I admit some need tidying up and sourcing but that alone isn't necessarily grounds for deletion, All encyclopedic info that needs some TLC really. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long Low Rumble[edit]

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

unreferenced, shortlived nn band fails WPMUSIC-somebody's fancruft Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and unsourced. No sources to indicate the band is in any way notable. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article gives no indication of notability and lacks references. Google search turned up weak references. Fails WP:NOTABILITY WP:BAND and WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article gives no real indication of encyclopedic relevance. Very few results on Google, nothing significant, nothing found from HighBeam. --Michig (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magie Noir[edit]

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

I don't believe that this page meets Wikipedia's notability. It serves as an advertisement for a London night club rather an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.133.113 (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I completed the nom. Ansh666 02:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never heard of this cocktail, the related article isn't much. I considered sending it to speedy but I'm not 100% sure. Szzuk (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (then consider a ((R from misspelling)) to Magie Noire, which at least is correct French). I assume the source for this page is this Guardian comment piece but I failed to find any other sources, so I think this fails the "multiple sources" requirement of WP:GNG. A Google Books search for "Magie Noir" cocktail -wikipedia gives three relevant hits (ignore the last one as irrelevant), but the first hit is simply reprinting the Guardian comment piece and the second looks so similar it appears that "the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information", to quote WP:GNG#cite_note-3. The third GBooks hit is the script of a later play, so not a reliable source for a factual article. Qwfp (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 12:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nac Mac Feegle[edit]

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

In-universe description of a race within a series of novels; uses only primary sources (the lone secondary source supports an ancillary fact). Not notable enough for an article. Mikeblas (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without real world coverage, there is no need for this to have an article. TTN (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea Airways[edit]

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

NN - not an airline, more an intention to establish an airline one day. No references provided. Website inactive. gidonb (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that step. I did inform all contributors about the deletion process. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same article was removed from the Dutch Wikipedia (see removed article and minimal discussion). gidonb (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an airline that didnt appear so not really of note. (note the ICAO code no longer allocated) MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please close this discussion? This article has been around for 9 years (!!!) and all the time it was NN. A loose plan that has long been dropped. Nine years and nobody seemed to care. gidonb (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability offered or to be found for this bare stub. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Sutherland[edit]

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

Biography, relying entirely on primary and unreliable sources, of a person notable only as a city councillor in what was, at the time, a suburban non-metropolitan city. I suppose one could argue that North York's subsequent amalgamation into Toronto, which occurred 12 years after the end of the subject's term on North York's municipal council, could retroactively graft the "metropolitan world city" notability of Toronto's city councillors onto North York's — I'd grant that to Metro Toronto councillors, personally, but not to people who served only on the suburban local councils — but even if you want to argue that view, the article would still have to be properly sourced. And as long as our article doesn't actually contain proper sourcing which verifies that she has died, WP:BLP still applies in the absence of explicit proof to the contrary — and unsourced BLPs have even less right to stick around. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per @Bearcat:. Her trail might be notable, not much on the person.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another local politician who does not meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPOL. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was My goodness, I'd forgotten that I'd ever written this one. In 2005, I had very little conception of what counted for "notability". In my defense, though, her career had taken off (only to be smacked brutally back onto the ground within seconds of having cleared the runway). Well, I'm an admin now, so I should be more responsible; I'll delete this myself. DS (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fannius III[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. No albums released, dropped by her label about a decade ago, no charted or certified singles. And from what I can tell, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Granted, it is rather hard to search for her due to her ever-changing name (she's gone by Fan_3, Fannius, Fannius III, and most recently Allison Jayne) and the frequent appearance of "Allison Jayne" and "Fan 3" in Google results unrelated to this singer, but all I could find were these two articles, which serve as little more than brief overview of her insignificant career. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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