< 5 July	7 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ren Shi Gong Fu[edit]

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

Non-notable martial arts school - advertisement Peter Rehse (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No real results on Google or Baidu to speak of. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 02:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Can't find anything about this topic, even in local newspapers. --180.155.72.174 (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAt least in English no WP:RS via Google search or in the article. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~then Redirect to List of Chinese martial arts.~~ While this undoubtedly exists as a Shaolin fighting style, I can't find the significant coverage in reliable independent sources in either English or Chinese necessary to establish notabiity. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The List is supposed to be of existing articles. Redirect would not be appropriate. I am not so sure that this is a unique style.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... Fair comment, I've amended my !vote accordingly. Taking a cynical view, this is arguably a Shaolin wannabee style rather than anything unique. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads more like an ad. Nothing to show it meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krrb[edit]

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

Not a single one of the sources is reliable for notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice amount of sources. Encyclopedic layout and history descriptions. And notable conflict with Craigslist. — Cirt (talk) 18:58, 23 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 29 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, czar ♔ 22:41, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vid Cruiter[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page as there is a possible outcome of a binding merge of the two pages:

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

Marginally notable company founded by marginally notable person. Preferred outcomes of this discussion are either: "delete both," "merge to Vid Cruiter," or "merge to Sean Fahey." Of course, the community may say "keep both" or "no consensus/agreement." In the case of "consensus to NOT keep both but no consensus for a particular outcome," I may boldly merge or redirect the article with less support into article into the one with more support as a non-binding (i.e. WP:BRD-eligible) outcome. My hope is there will be enough consensus for a binding decision one way or the other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Update Fixed typo in merge-to: Corrected to Vid Cruiter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also: User:Bouake123/sandbox/vdc. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:17, 25 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:05, 29 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, czar ♔ 22:40, 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 keep. Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Lekhnath[edit]

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

~~Unreferenced local media of Lekhnath but not nationwide, Fails WP:GNG — Ascii002 ^{Let's talk!} 00:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:07, 29 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, czar ♔ 22:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Licenced radio stations are generally notable. Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has no sources. Its rather good redirecting to List of radio stations in Asia#Nepal. As it will have reliable sources, it can be converted into article. — Ascii002 ^{Let's talk!} ^{^Contribs} 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I noticed that one reference has been added and there is no reason of deleting the page. — Ascii002 ^{Let's talk!} ^{^Contribs} 01:23, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bailey (U.S. politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. No independent sources. – S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I didn't find sources either, and they should be pretty easy to find for a politician. I live literally a stones throw from him here in NC, and I've never heard of him. And btw, thank you for dropping the note off at the NC project, that was very good form and it is appreciated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also couldn't find sources to pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unelected politician. Leave a redirect to United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2004 if you'd like. If there were any sourced information to merge, I would have suggested that, but there isn't. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In general failed candidates do not merit articles, especially when they were candidates for minor parties.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — and that goes double for unelected candidates for office whose articles are sourced only to a primary source. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unelected politician without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. He is barely mentioned even in election coverage. For example., Chicago Tribune just lists him in the vote tallies. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious WP:NPOL and WP:GNG fail.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable candidate, no independent sources at all. Tiller54 (talk) 17:01, 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. To the extent that there is a consensus here, it would not preclude a redirect. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friend (album)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Nothing more than a track listing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ per the Cross Rhythms review cited in the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Multiple sources are needed to support notability. Only one present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:57, 25 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 00:44, 29 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, czar ♔ 22:21, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Hammer[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that was created too long ago for a BLP PROD. Though she has some notable credits/connections, I'm not seeing enough to pass WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 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, czar ♔ 22:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but weak delete, could not find reliable sources, although what I have trouble explaining is why this person has a rather high pageview count, averaging 50 pageviews/day. So what is going on here? Not much comes up after about 8 SERP pages. Maybe she is borderline notable in a somewhat non-mainstream area (Goth etc) so sources are not showing up? Not sure what to make of this, but I could change my vote with new information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - purely for consistency's sake this must be deleted, but ... can we save it? Bearian (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to rescue it but my guess it will be fruitless. I've done Heymann-type revamps on articles posed for deletion (for notable subjects) only to see the revamps reverted, like on Laura Mersini-Houghton, back to a problematic article, so I am not so sure it would be worth it to try to improve an article on a (possibly?) marginal subject?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: Speaking as the only other delete !vote at the moment, I can tell you I would have no reason or inclination personally to revert improvements if you chose to spend your time doing so. I did search for sources myself, but if you can find some good stuff I couldn't for whatever reason I'm also not opposed to withdrawing it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Rhododendrites:, your open-mindedness is appreciated; what I am saying is that I could spend a half hour or hour trying to fix up this article on Lisa Hammer, and when done, we would all look at the revamp, and all still vote delete. But I am not sure. If an article has a chance, I like to revamp it but it is guesswork and I am trying to use my time productively.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mors Syphilitica. I'll also venture an Ignore All Rules keep. This is the sort of person that I would expect a comprehensive encyclopedia to cover. But as an underground film maker, she seems to have escaped notice in the more usual places. At the very least, we should be able to merge some of this article with the band page. The band page is in sad shape, but could be referenced. I found [1], and [2] about the band. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain, changing vote from Delete (above) to Uncertain, I added 5 references but I am still on the fence on this one. I think part of the problem is that she has done many things (actress, director, vocalist, etc) and much of this work is in niche territory, so it is hard for us Wikipedians who don't know the goth/horror world to know what the best sources are? If the article gets deleted, and anybody wants it back (revamped?) write something on my talk page and we could try refloating it.
Weak keep, changing from looking for more references (added to the article); still, not sure about the overall quality of the references, in total, will go with what the closing admin decides. What's interesting still is the high pageview count, averaging 50 pageviews/day (plucked from my struck-out comment). Definitely an interesting person. Less sure about overall notability. If the article stays here in Wikipedia, I'll try to revamp it when I get time, but I don't want to work on something that will meet the ax.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:05, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explorer 8300[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, cruft, and WP:NOLEGAL violation ViperSnake151 Talk 02:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 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 01:52, 29 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, czar ♔ 22:20, 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 keep. While more participation here would have been ideal, consensus in this short discussion is for article retention, albeit weakly due to stated low participation. Additionally, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if so desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dooby Dooby Moo[edit]

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

Children's book that fails WP:NBOOK. Long-unreferenced stub. Mikeblas (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 23 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 29 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, czar ♔ 22:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to authors article Doreen Cronin. Recommend a WP:BLAR, and use the opportunity to ISBNize the other books listed in her article. – S. Rich (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Kirkus Review, Humanities 360 review, TTLG review, and a collection of reviews (or something). No problem with notability here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [3] (Washington Post, 1 paragraph short review); [4] (Chicago Sun-Times full page review of a play adaptation of the book), plus Kirkus above, seem to just reach notability. Sorry for the paywalls, these may have non-paywalled equivalents. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:37, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Cabanatuan[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a "metropolitan area" that is inexistent. See Cities of the Philippines#Metropolitan areas for the list of the 12 Metropolitan Areas of the Philippines officially designated by the National Economic and Development Authority. RioHondo (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 23 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 29 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, czar ♔ 22:19, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squadron posters art[edit]

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

I am unable to find any reliable sources for this subject. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 20:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:05, 29 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, czar ♔ 22:18, 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 00:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UsedEverywhere.com[edit]

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

Promo tone and failure of WP:NWEB. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Limited local press coverage. Cowlibob (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY4QHGz_iqY&feature=youtu.be&t=54s It's an old news segment on UsedEverywhere (UsedVictoria locally) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almagordo (talk • contribs) 18:55, 26 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 21:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable website. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:09, 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 00:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Servi[edit]

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

Appears to have had only a few minor roles. Not enough to meet notability requirements. Also lacks reliable sources. Eeekster (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-created promotional article. Definitely doesn't meet WP:ENT by a long shot; and no indication in article that she even begins to meet WP:GNG. Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. I went through 9 SERP pages, only found one mention, added the mention-reference, clearly an actor but just has not yet received the media attention needed to meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:28, 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 19:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattanites[edit]

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

Single source Fails WP:GNG. The source (Hollywood Today Newsmagazine) is about the DVD launch party (obvious puff piece) and doesn't count. Is there coverage 5 years on? Are there multiple sources? In the previous AfD, one keep vote was from a now blocked sock. COI creator. Widefox; talk 09:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add filmyear to address false positives:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

director 1:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

director 2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

Weak keep per interest in and coverage by those Soap Opera sources specializing in coverage of soap stars and their projects. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno [5] looks like a passing mention in an interview. Are there 2 strong sources? Widefox; talk 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in such as Soap Opera Digest and similar: We Love Soaps West Side Spirit Soaps In Depth Covering Media Independent Film Reviews Daytime Confidential Michael Fairman et al. Definitely not reviewed by Variety or New York Times. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

welovesoaps.net is an interview - not especially strong source, and looks like a PR release promo content. http://abc.soapsindepth.com/2011/11/larson-dishes-on-the-bay.html is passing mention (article is about THE BAY), http://www.independentfilmreviews.com/manhattanites/ doesn't look RS - it is UGC. Are there 2 strong ones?! Widefox; talk 15:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOVIE

1. - doesn't appear to satisfy distrib

2. no

3. no

4. no

5. no

Widefox; talk 15:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best read WP:OEN to gain better understanding of how to apply "Other evidence of notability". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I understand your OEN, you're just saying don't take examples too literally. What's the film notable for Michael? Maybe it launched a soap star to film career? I don't know, what I do know is...

WP:INHERITED - notability of the soap stars isn't inherited (and coverage fluff on them). We've got no claim of notability or enduring impact for the film, no award, nothing past 5 years etc, no review yet ([6] is UGC so not RS), no plot source yet (and none at IMDB). Straight to DVD and forgotten about. Agree if these weak sources helped substantiate something, but this falls below GNG, without much RS to base an article. Widefox; talk 10:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my argument for a "weak keep" was as clear as could be made, and NOT per the WP:INHERITED argument you bring forth, though we might consider WP:NTEMP when considering that it has not received continued coverage for years after its release. As soap operas and their stars are not usually the topic of major media, we may consider the genre coverage they receive in the genre sources covering their genre... coverage in such as Soap Opera Digest and similar: We Love Soaps West Side Spirit Soaps In Depth Covering Media Independent Film Reviews Daytime Confidential Michael Fairman et al. might be seen as showing a genre "cult following". Again, definitely not something reviewed by Variety or New York Times... and while such "major" media would be nice, they are not a mandate. Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:12, 21 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 10:06, 16 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, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: While relistings are ordinarily limited to two, relisting this one more time to allow time for the rationale in the keep !vote above and sources presented to be further considered. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to have the required significant coverage in reliable sources. Likely COI/spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Can Game (high school football)[edit]

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

This is a non-notable HIGH SCHOOL sports rivalry. Fails the specific notability guidelines of WP:SPORTSEVENT, as well as the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. As editors who are familiar with our sports and events notability guidelines should be aware, we err on the side of NOT including high school athletes, sports teams, events and rivalries in Wikipedia because they are of extremely limited interest to our readers, and are usually heavily dependent on local and non-independent sources for documentation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer1. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable by any measure I can find. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails WP:NOTABILITY --Jersey92 (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer. Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 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 delete. The article was nominated for deletion because of concerns about notability. None of the keep votes express a policy-based rationale for keeping the article. Notability has not been established per WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 23:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bit Riot Records[edit]

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

Perhaps someone who is better at finding sources for popular culture can find some secondary reliable sources for this label, but I can only find articles about artists which happen to mention Bit Riot in passing as their label or the label on which their latest release will be issued. I can't find anything about the label itself and while they have some talent who may be notable, notability is not inherited. TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice unless we can find some actual third-party coverage of the label itself - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't having notable artists and successful releases what makes a label notable?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but we still have no actual sources for this article concerning the label itself. Hence my "delete" being "without prejudice" - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am voting keep based on artists and releases.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Record labels coming up for deletion are difficult to defend, because they aren't usually "sexy" unless talking about truly legendary labels such as Motown, Sun, or Gennett. The artists get all the press and credit, but those who study the industry know how important record labels have been (and continue to be, though to a lesser extent) on musical culture and development. A record company will properly divert attention to the product, and not to itself, therefore the GNG can be difficult to meet even for a successful independent. WP:CORP isn't really a good fit for record labels, because they are in the business of producing and promoting "art", not a typical consumer good. The best case for keeping a record label such as this is found in WP:MUSIC. An artist is considered inherently notable if they have signed to "a label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of many notable musicians." Therefore it stands to reason that a label that has many notable artists signed to it is inherently notable. I've been borrowing from him, but I'm going to quote @Chubbles: directly here because he put it better than I can:
This is not circular and does not violate WP:NOTINHERITED, as is often claimed; the notability of the artist is not based upon whether or not the label has an article, although this is sometimes used as a lazy shorthand. There are many labels without articles that fit these criteria. Much as we do with artists who are members of more than one clearly notable band but who are not themselves the subject of extensive news coverage, I think it is sensible to do the same with labels.

This label has three clearly notable artists signed to it, and has an established history of 7 years. Now, I have seen a record company or even an independent editor create articles about a record company, and separate articles about its artists, and then using one to support the other's notability is a clear violation of NOTINHERIT. However, two of the bands articles were created and developed by editors who have not worked on this article, and the other has had multiple editors contributing to it, and is the most highly notable of these bands, clearly having established notability regardless of WP:BAND #5. Articles such as this are important to keep, as the label has influenced our musical legacy. Since there are verifiable facts which demonstrate influence on the music world, this article and those like it are important to keep as providing valuable, encyclopedic information. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 18:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- If we can find some third-party sources that are actually about the label (not just mentioning the name in passing), I'll change my comment to "keep" - David Gerard (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I question the claim of three clearly notable artist. Only one seems clear and Bit Riot was only a minor label for them, rereleasing in a different region. Even if all were notable it is not enough for bands for WP:MUSIC#5, let alone for this business to inherit notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:29, 14 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, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:45, 26 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 21:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is better off with this piece than without it as a source of in-links. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Business lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Not notable. Notability is not inherited. Notable artists do not make a business notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:21, 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 keep. Secret ^account 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Garen[edit]

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

This article was tagged as possible failing the notability requirement since 2010. I recently proposed deletion, based on WP:ONEEVENT. This proposal was rejected by the article's creator, on the grounds that he "still remembers the event", and that the event has historical importance. That is not my understanding of WP:ONEEVENT - the event may be notable, but that does not mean that a person whose only notability is his participation in the event is notable Brad Dyer (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Only a passing reference here and there. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Putting aside (for now) the question of whether he merits a decent article here, the article that he now has looked until a few minutes ago as if it was lazily "summarized" (i.e. copied and then clumsily abridged) from the page about Garen at fourcornersmedia.net. A quick look showed that this was the "handiwork" of a SPA grandly named "Glosserandparser". I've reverted the addition. (It had only been in the article since 2006.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is his contributor page for Granta an RS? It's quite informative. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No answer to the above question in almost a week. A contributor page is I think often largely the product of the contributor himself; but even if this was so here, Granta (a solid magazine), decided to republish it. And its content looks good. So I'll plump for "keep". -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the one-event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the AfD is understandable, given the former article, and I agree that the one-event of his kidnapping and release (which received huge international attention) is arguably the most important event in his journalistic career, there is much more to him which clearly meets the GNG, particularly he is a notable documentary filmmaker working in a dangerous region (the Middle East) who continues to produce notable work. This material was not in the article before, but now is (see 15 sources; over half of them are not about the kidnapping). He is an award-winning photographer; his documentary won a top award. And the kidnapping continues to have ramifications today, specifically touching on the rights of journalists (who often are ill-treated in wartime). His book about the ordeal won [plaudits from Kirkus. Clearly he is an influential documentary filmmaker who clearly meets the GNG even without the kidnapping stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 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. Secret ^account 20:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Marching Virginians[edit]

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

Not clear how this student organization might meet notability guidelines. References provided are a single ESPN.com article, letter to the editor in the student newspaper and primary sources. Hardly the kind of significant coverage in 3rd party sources notability guidelines call for. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lit search in a newspaper database includes many substantial hits, i.e. articles substantially about the marching band in McClatchy News Service and in US Fed News Service, e.g. "MARCHING VIRGINIANS HOLD 13TH ANNUAL HOKIES FOR HUNGRY FOOD DRIVE", US Fed News Service, Including US State News [Washington, D.C] 26 Oct 2009. I also see lots of scattered hits in major papers specifically relating to 2007 shooting incident, e.g. Los Angeles Times: "THE NATION; Services held for shooting victims", 22 Apr 2007: A.21. which has abstract as follows: "Hundreds of mourners packed the gymnasium at [Ryan Clark]'s former high school to hear rousing songs from his former bandmates and praise for the young man with a contagious laugh. Clark was in his fifth year in the Marching Virginians, who traveled to this small eastern Georgia town for the service at Lakeside High School, where Clark and his twin brother, Bryan, graduated in 2002." The scattered hits are significantly about the band, and are significant, and with the regular hits in lesser news services all provide substantial coverage. There is a significant Marching Virginians Alumni Association, too (which perhaps can be covered as a section in the main article). --doncram 05:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also saw a number of articles mentioning the organization in the context of the Virginia Tech shooting incident. The organization is mentioned but the primary subject of those articles is the shooting, which is obviously notable. However, notability is not inherited.--RadioFan (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.It may be sensible to find out how much these sources are devoted to this topic.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability guidelines. I've added one reference and there are others out there with significant coverage. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment another reference from the student newspaper does little to demonstrate notability.--RadioFan (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the Collegiate Times has editorial oversight and is independent of the institution, which makes it a reliable source as far as notability goes. Philg88 ^♦talk 20:06, 29 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 21:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This still not closed? Here's another article in Washington Post with substance about the band, from before the 2009 shooting: "In Defiance, Students Persist With Raunchy Cheer" [FINAL Edition] Kinzie, Susan; Adam Kilgore - Washington Post Staff Writers. The Washington Post [Washington, D.C] 16 Sep 2007: C.5. It's about the university trying to quell a cheer where the students chime "thrust it in", which "used to be prompted by the rattle of the drumsticks of the Marching Virginians band when the Hokies got past the 20-yard line; it was about getting the ball in the end zone. Students couldn't yell the cheer without demonstrating it." The band has been stopped from playing the cheer. It's a 512 word article. More articles available. I voted Keep above. --do ncr am 02:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to what has already been mentioned, there is coverage in The Roanoke Times, including [7] [8] [9] Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that first link documents fundraising going on towards the marching band getting a $4.7 million practice facility! Seems clearly notable. Thanks. --do ncr am 15:57, 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akaki Mikuchadze[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds of having been the top scorer of a non fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had 27 appearances for Hapoel Be'er Sheva in Liga Leumit for 2006-07 which is listed as fully professional in WP:FPL at that time. Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving to meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GS, has played in a fully professional league. Needs improving not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 14:54, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zest (positive psychology)[edit]

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

Merge to Positive Psychology and delete. This is mostly either unsourced or cited to a single article on the subject written by the creator of the theory, and appears to be part of an attempt to promote that theory on Wikipedia. What content is particular to this 'strength of humanity' is essentially a dictionary definition of the term. Revent (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use/application of zest in positive psychology is not different and distinct enough from the general concept of zest to warrant a new article just on its use in this specific area. There should be a new article on Zest, which could be based on this article. Currently, Zest is a disambiguation page, but I think Zest should be an article on the character trait, and the disambiguation page should be renamed. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 20:18, 20 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 02:50, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corporation Service Company[edit]

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

Article fails WP:CORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. The article appears to be a thinly veiled PR piece and the secondary sources are mere mentions of the company. The company did win some New York Law Journal reader awards, but those don't seem to be notable. In searching for sources, I've found plenty of mentions and lists, and the company has published a prolific amount, but I haven't found any reliable, third-party sources about the company itself. EBstrunk18 (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This company is a longtime international presence in the corporate service business, well known in the world of corporate law, at least. Some legitimate sources are cited here, although I don't have full-text access to all of them. I suppose that there are some types of companies that are insufficiently documented to support articles even about the dominant players. But, with due regard for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's still fair to note that we also have an article (with even less sourcing) for their longtime competitor CT Corporation. I acknowledge the nominator's concerns, but in light of all the factors, I'd prefer to see this article kept and stripped of any excessively promotional content. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known enough in its field; as long as we cut out the cruft and spam. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 23 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 02:56, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 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 Merge to Society of Operating Cameramen. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operating Cameraman Magazine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a subject with too little coverage and too few WP:RS. Search on subject only resulted in passing mentions, or obviously unreliable sources (like Answers.com). Mr. Guye (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Society of Operating Cameramen. It's mentioned there, and another clause or two would not be inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 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 03:04, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - yeah, that seems sensible. I don't think it's notable enough on its own to justify an article but we can include it elsewhere in passing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Society of Operating Cameramen, a reasonable WP:ATD in this instance. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 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 delete. Secret ^account 19:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN's Sports Heaven[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Looks like an IMDB entry for a Super Bowl ad. No indication of notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; completely unsourced as it stands and full of POV. Can't find reliable sources. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to ESPN MVP (formerly Mobile ESPN). Reliable sources do exist. The link to the AdWeek article mentioned in the current text was deleted as a deadlink, but here's a live link [10] and there's also a working archive.org link now cited in the article. Articles about the ad include: Boston Globe [11], Boston Herald [12], Ad Age[13] (noting this was ESPN's first Super Bowl ad), Auburn Journal [14], a book on ESPN history [15], International Herald Tribune [16] (the last two have relatively brief coverage). However, I am not sure there has been enough lasting coverage focused on the ad, as opposed to the Mobile ESPN service it was introducing, to justify a separate article about the ad. In the first AfD, the result was "keep" but strong arguments were also made in favor of merger instead. In any event, deletion would not be appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While merging whatever useful info might appropriate, this deletion request was made primarily because there is no real claim to notability for this advertisement. Most of the articles you mentioned are the regular puff pieces which cover basically every high profile Super Bowl advertising campaign. They function to promote the ads themselves as well as take opportunity to draw readers in by discussing something having to do with the superbowl. Lasting notability, inherent importance in the field of advertising or otherwise is not established. Certainly sources like [17] have more to do with other subjects and do not explain why this advertisement deserves coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article must be deleted or merged as soon as possible since it is incomplete. It gives Wikipedia a bad public image. Joey Gallo (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not temporary. There's is a rash of coverage on lavish superbowl ads every year. Theis is simply one of those ads, and the coverage is at a point in time. That makes it a news item. There is no lasting impact. the book on ESPN history provided above gives the ad a one sentence mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 8 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 03:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playkey[edit]

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

Not notable, no references outside of primary source, no media coverage, most likely just some organization trying to promote their new service — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Medium-depth coverage in many independent sources; I'm not sure about the reliability of specific sources. Searching for "Компания Playkey" (Playkey company) may turn up fewer false positives. Most coverage follows a June 5 presentation, as this technology has not yet been released. The duration of coverage or its pre-release status may be factors in assessing notability.

CNews 2014-05-14, press release for conference presentation - does not count toward notability
CNews 2014-06-02, press release for press conference - does not count toward notability
Telekomza 2014-06-05, press release - does not count toward notability
News Service Ferra 2014-06-07
NewsCase 2014-06-07, syndicated from News Service Ferra
Playground 2014-06-06, passing mention of Playkey as a technical partner of Dom.ru
Playground 2014-06-05
CIO News 2014-06-09, syndicated from Playground article above
Open Systems Publications 2014-06-06, short (two paragraph) article
Audio and Video 2014-06-07
Контакты 2014-06-05, more critical coverage of Playkey's presentation than many other articles
Broadcast/Telekritika.ua 2014-06-10
GameGuru 2014-06-06
Омскпресс (Omskpress) more about telecom operator Dom.ru than partner Playkey
GoHaRu 2014-06-06 short (3 paragraph) article
Аргументы и факты 2014-06-18
Mediasat 2014-06-08

Yandex may be useful in locating additional news coverage of the subject. ––Agyle (talk) 05:59, 21 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 03:17, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—They have a good PR department, but I'm not seeing independent reviews yet. Kudos to Agyle for some encyclopedic legwork. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable and looks like a self-promo job. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:04, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Zarandia[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an unsupported claim to significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:53, 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 redirect to List of Star Wars books#The Corellian Trilogy. After 2 relists, no-one has countered the strong argument that the articles fail the notability guideline but the redirect suggested by NinjaRobotPirate is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Corellian Trilogy[edit]

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

Non-notable series in the Star Wars universe; the individual books fail WP:NBOOK, as does the series, so I'm listing them all:

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 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all individual book articles into the trilogy article. Books which form part of the Star Wars Expanded Universe are treated as a type of Star Wars canon, AFAIK, but there doesn't seem to be enough here for individual articles for each book. Ivanvector (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe there's enough for the series, even after the merge? Nothing in the source articles is referenced, so we'd just have a single larger article of unreferenced and non-notable material after the proposed merge. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that seems to be standard fare for articles on Expanded Universe works here. There are dozens of them and few have any references at all, but we keep them anyway. You might say they inherit notability by virtue of being Star Wars licensed works. Ivanvector (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Star Wars books#The Corellian Trilogy. There is no inherited notability. It has to stand on its own. Deletion would be OK as a fallback. I don't see any obvious signs of notability, professional reviews, or much of anything else outside of blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:00, 20 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 03:45, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 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 merge to Buck House NYC. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Buck[edit]

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

Violation of Wikipedia:PROMOTION TyphoonMoose (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is clearly notable based on sources present. The article needs some thinning and adjustments in its tone to avoid the sense that it is purely promotional, but it has value and should be kept (and has been here since 2011). Dwpaul ^Talk 02:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note See also Buck House NYC. I might support a merge of these two articles, but that is, of course, a different conversation. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Buck House NYC. The SPA contribs for the article show that she was/is the proprietor of this gallery, and there are sources out there for both her and her eponymous gallery: [18],[19], [20]. A significant part of the content of both articles is an exhibition list, which can be trimmed and the article be rewritten to cover both topics with an appropriate redirect. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per arguments above. L'Aquotique (talk) 22:47, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Buck House NYC here. Two articles, each fairly short and with a great deal of overlap. But there are some sources on her. - Colapeninsula (talk) 15:56, 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 delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Providence[edit]

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

Non-notable poli-sci / economics book. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amazon entry suggests that the book received some reviews, but I can't find any. Redirect to Patrick_Mendis#Bibliography seems to be a sensible solution. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. Appears WP is being used for publicity. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:13, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Was only able to track down a single, one-paragraph review. Not enough in the way of WP:RS for notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:38, 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. The consensus is that the requirements of the GNG are not satisfied, and the advocates of keeping have not adequately addressed that argument. Deor (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatians 3[edit]

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

Ambiguous attack page with no RS. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ G10 as attack page with no neutral previous version czar ♔ 01:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now that the CSD has been contested, regular delete. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. (The AllGame listing of the company was the only hit.) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 02:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is nonsense, the page isn't attacking any living person whatsoever. Nonetheless, while I see that a lack of reliable sources can be a problem, just give the page some time. Phoenix, the developer of the game, is strangely unknown around the Internet in places other than YouTube. Unfortunately, Wikipedia guidelines state that YouTube videos are unreliable, so there is little reference outside of that. But honestly, let the page grow for a while, then we can see if it's truly needed. Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 03:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article now has four references so far. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 00:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the four are reliable (see the link for more information): one is self-published and the other three are unreliable (blogs). For more on the types of sources WP accepts, see the video game WikiProject's list at WP:VG/RS czar ♔ 03:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine, now so far I've added one and changed another. Also, a question: how long will this deletion be up for debate? I've looked around on the guidelines page and didn't find anything about that. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 13:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter doesn't even mention the game once, so I'm not sure why you added it. The answer to your question is a week (second sentence of WP:AFD), with extensions as necessary czar ♔ 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough, the blogs are considered unreliable and the other article doesn't mention the game. Does the video reference count as anything? The game, while maybe not too notable, certainly exists and has received attention by those who've seen the video. Also, if you consider this article unreliable, you may as well confront the other Phoenix Games articles. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 19:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can add Phoenix to my list. hiddenblock.com was down when I went to check it, but the cached version's about page didn't have an editorial policy—so that's likely unreliable as well. czar ♔ 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, neither YouTube nor Hidden Block have editorial policies, but the video review in question does still show the game's box and footage from the game itself. Those who have viewed the video often find it to indeed be a terribly flawed game, and what over 650,000 people consider to be such a poorly-crafted creation could be of benefit to WP:VG. The video is informative about the game; furthermore, though this factor is irrelevant, I find the video pretty funny. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 00:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good (and I actually had seen the video before this AfD), but the notability criteria are designed to make sure there's enough reliable content to actually have a page. Otherwise it becomes a magnet for unofficial stuff, blog posts, you know czar ♔ 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Insufficient reviews to be notable; it features in some lists and brief articles, but mainly in forums. Could redirect to Phoenix Software but that article really needs some sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even though the article is far from being an attack page (it does have NPOV issues), it fails WP:GNG, with no reliable sources. It's a game major platform so sources could possibly be found, though that's unlikely, and notability isn't inherited. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article contains no attack to any aspects of the company in any way shape or form. No attack is intended or directed at any aspect of the company or their released titles. I see that there is no reason to delete this article so forth as it helps sole video game reviews as myself. Although there is some verification needed, that can be changed in the coming future. Verification as a whole is not just one aspect to delete articles. Many aspects should be taken into consideration as of the knowledge of this company. — TastyTwinkie214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge This and all the other Phoenix Dalmatian games into one article, as long as we can find reliable sources. If not then I will change my vote to delete. good888 (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a single source that is both reliable and providing significant coverage. Fails the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 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. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 23:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Active Royal Navy Vessels in 1982[edit]

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

Do we really need this article? I don't think having Active ships per year is such a good idea, too much effort maintaining it. This article is an orphan so nothing links here - rather delete IMO it as all the info is available on other pages Gbawden (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't seem to need this nomination because, if this information is covered elsewhere, there are sensible alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even heads of state get listed by year, and they're much more time-critical. Ships? Noooo. The simple fact that they're in commission at a certain date is unnotable. (The article doesn't even match its own title: it includes ships "being planned or under construction".) I'd say WP:NOTDIRECTORY. What next? Shopping centers open in 1982? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Given that these were the ships available for the Falklands War, the article seems useful. Nick-D (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you volunteering to create Active Royal Navy vessels in 1789, Active Royal Navy vessels in 1812, Active Royal Navy vessels in 1939, etc.? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, but those would be good ideas for articles, and dedicated sources on those topics exist. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 2 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 20:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not persuaded by the maintenance argument; because, since this is a year gone by nothing will change unlike List of active Royal Navy ships for example. The connection with the ships available for the Falklands War is an interesting concept. I think a restructure to make that link more direct, or perhaps a merge somewhere, would be a good idea but, meanwhile, I see no reason for deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. As a concept for an article, I think this is reasonable, and certainly reference exist (a number of which are cited on the page) to verify this information and satisfy WP:N. But, the title is terrible (nobody is ever going to type that into a search box), and it's an orphan, so as a practical matter, it's unreachable. Not to mention that, as pointed out by others, the title is just plain wrong, since the article includes ships under construction, etc. So, I think we need to find a better title (Royal Navy in 1982, perhaps), and make sure it's linked into the appropriate places, such as Falklands War. Alternatively, just merge there. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 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 no consensus. SpinningSpark 10:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Verde School[edit]

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

Non notable middle school. The closest thing to notability is they tore it down. Jacona (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sure it takes less time to tear down a not notable school building than to delete its article here. :-) Now shall we have to find another article to merge and redirect this one, in case we succeed to convince everybody that a separate article is not necessary? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a school district is known Irvine Unified School District, but the redirect was reverted though notability seems lacking, thus we find ourselves here.Jacona (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a major contributor to the article. The school has somewhat unusual characteristics (all-year, combined primary and middle, not a neighborhood school), a small but nontrivial history (the 2006 campus move, very misleadingly described as "they tore it down" by the nominator), and some level of distinction (Blue Ribbon School of Excellence), all of which are well-sourced to multiple newspaper articles (one of which is in a minor local paper but the rest are in a major regional paper). None of this encyclopedic information would be appropriate to merge into the parent article Irvine Unified School District which includes only the names of each school. On the face of it this would seem to be enough for WP:GNG, which requires only "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In attempting to delete this article out-of-process, the nominator invoked WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but that refers back to the general notability guideline for organizations and adds "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability get merged or redirected in AfD." Note that "most" is very different from "all" and that (I believe) a clear claim for notability exists here, namely the Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. (The article on this distinction states that it has been won by only 5200 schools out of over 133000 eligible schools.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David -- I'm not sure whether you watch the school AfDs, but as one who does I wonder if it might not be helpful for you to look at some old ones from the past year or two, to see just what the level of notability is that has generally been required at AfD for middle schools (the opposite happens with high schools, btw -- nearly all of those are kept, despite a paucity of refs). Here is a small slice of those AfDs. As you will see, a school that is in a group of ~~5,200~~ 7,000 schools is unlikely to be deemed a middle school deserving of a stand-alone article due to that accomplishment. And I'm not sure what of the other matters you point to are significant enough to bring it out of the Outcomes determination ... being all-year, combined primary and middle, not a neighborhood school, and a campus move each seem to me to be short of the notability looked for in middle schools at AfD. But perhaps I'm missing something. Epeefleche (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually significantly more select than 5200 schools — it won three times, something only a small fraction of those 5200 have done, but I don't have sourcing to make it any more specific than that. And I'm not sure what looking at past school outcomes would accomplish. We have an extremely arbitrary division here where even the most bog-standard high school is considered notable (and where according to the same WP:ORG guideline a company with a couple dozen employees can be considered notable as long as it gets a little press) but even a multi-award-winning, top school in a county of three million people, repeatedly covered in major newspapers middle school is considered of questionable notability. I know it saves brain cells but does this make any sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to, you know, actually think about whether this one meets WP:ORG? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether it makes sense to look at OUTCOMES in the case of schools, I posed similar questions years ago. The response I received -- largely from sysops DGG and Kudpung (who may wish to chime in here) -- as well as what I observed in AfD results, led me to understand that by the community's action there appears to be a consensus at school AfDs, as evidenced over the past few years, to act in accordance with past "outcomes". Whether that makes sense is perhaps something that could be revisited, either by RFC or at the Outcomes talk page, but as of now that consensus appears to be pretty solid. Whatever our view as to whether it makes sense. And I dare say that you and I could easily name some other wikipedia consensus positions that we abide by, even though we do not think they make sense. Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure. It doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge them from time to time, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Middle schools can be notable; they just need to meet GNG. I would say this school comes pretty close. I added another LA Times reference to the article; for a small elementary/middle school it has gotten a surprising amount of coverage from regional media. That plus winning the Blue Ribbon designation three times (I have seen it argued at AfD that Blue Ribbon status confers automatic notability, although I don't think that is a consensus) I think this one could be a keeper. In any case "delete" is not an option; the alternative to "keep" is "redirect to Irvine Unified School District". BTW the school's name is not unique - there are multiple other Vista Verde schools, and although none have articles, some exist here as redirects. So if the article is kept, we might consider a rename, perhaps to Vista Verde School (Irvine, California). --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to "Irvine Unified School District". Or delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We in the past have often treated Blue Ribbon School as a distinction that provides notability.In favor of doing so, is that it's the highest US designation for public schools. The total number of schools awarded this distinction is 4,100, out of about 100,000 public primary intermediate and secondary schools: it therefore amount to the top 4%. A good case can be made that the top 4 or 5% of anything is notable. I consider the GNG irrelevant here, because it is always possible in any given case to say the sources are sufficiently disceriminating, or not, depending upon what conclusion you want to achieve. A rule that permits including anywhere from 0 to 100% of anything is of no value. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three thoughts. First, as to Blue Ribbon schools ... have we in the past often not treated them as notable, as well? Second, I'm not sure but that you're over-reaching perhaps a tad when you assert: "A good case can be made that the top 4 or 5% of anything is notable". Third, do you have a response to David, as to his comments on not relying on OUTCOMES at AfDs, but instead on wp:ORG, and not treating high schools as per se notable (and those below it as unlikely to pass AfD)? Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there are actually 7,000 schools that have been denoted as "Blue Ribbon" schools.

I took a glance at middle school/blue ribbon AfDs initiated in the past two years that I could find. Two were redirected. See Castillero Middle School (San Jose, California) Afd (where user:Cullen wrote: "There have been over 5,000 Blue Ribbon school awards, and the program is based on a self-assessment. These routine awards don't make a middle school notable, in my opinion."). And Joaquin Miller Middle School (San Jose, California) AfD. One was speedy deleted; Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church (Raleigh, North Carolina) AfD. And one that closed as a keep; see Calcedeaver Elementary School AfD.

Others are welcome to do their own search, and see what they find. In short, of the 4 articles, 2 were redirected, 1 was deleted, and 1 was kept -- not quite an endorsement that being a Blue Ribbon school per se is sufficient (though I note David points to the fact that this school won multiple times; but we don't know how rare or common that is among the 7,000 Blue Ribbon schools).

And the fact that there are so many of these schools raises a question -- are those that think Blue Ribbon status is sufficient to qualify a middle school as notable really suggesting that we now allow all 7,000 such schools to now be added to wp? Seems like a lot, compared to the number of schools we currently have on wp. Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little disingenuous to point to all those past deletions without also observing that the two redirected ones (Joaquin and Castillero) had essentially no reliable secondary sources and that the speedy deletion was a copyright violation that had nothing to do with notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't seeking to be disingenuous. I'm sure David wasn't personally accusing me of that. As with all AfDs, there will be individual difference in factors considered. These were the four such AfDs I found that were begun in that time period. Each was a middle school. In each, !voters pointed to Blue Ribbon status. Of course, if editors want to look beyond that, they should look to the individual AfDs to which I've linked (and I've already pointed to what David might call a distinguishing factor). And, as David presumably knows, I can't see (as to the redirected and deleted articles) what the original article looked like ... but I can see that editors sought to keep them on the basis of their being blue ribbon schools. :::::Also, as to the article that included copyvio, even those editors who focused on that (which were only some) focused on that in some cases only in part, or focused on that as to only one part of the article. It is anything but clear, but we do know that one can remove a copyvio from a notable organization and stub the article and leave it as a stand-alone, if it is indeed notable.

And we do know that both of the two editors who did consider whether the Blue Ribbon status made the middle school that was deleted notable (User:JoannaSerah and user:RadioFan) didn't quite get there in that AfD.Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the unintended implication of dishonest intent; all I meant was that there's more to the story than what you said. Anyway, no special privileges are needed to see the pre-redirection content of those two articles (click on the history link in the AfD). And you don't need to see the content (just the log entry) to see that the deletion was over a copyvio. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the speedy delete, the only reason I mentioned that particular AfD was because that it appears to be one of the most recent 4 middle school AfDs where editors considered whether it should be kept on the basis of being a Blue Ribbon school. Neither of the editors who considered that characteristic found it to be sufficiently notable to per se require a keep. Looking at that AfD and the other AfDs from the past two years, I don't see a consensus to consider a school to be notable by virtue of being one of the 7,000 Blue Ribbon schools. I'm still open to being swayed that being a three-time winner makes the school notable, if there is support for the infrequency of that. But now that I know that there are 7,000 such schools (not 5,200 as originally suggested), and now that I know that there is no pattern within the past two years of considering a school per se notable because it is a Blue Ribbon school, unless I see something more I would lean towards a redirect, without any prohibition on recreating relevant content at the target page. Epeefleche (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not that I personally care one way or the other, but as I mentioned in the issue that was brought up over it in my RfA nearly 4 years ago, I am concerned with consistency across Wikipedia. That consistency means following a well established practice demonstrated by long, strong precedent, even if it means a touch of IAR. People accuse me of using OUTCOMES as a guideline, saying it is only an essay; in fact it's neither one nor the other - its just a report of the facts in one place on how certain AfDs are likely to, well, outcome. There have been countless RfC and other less formal debates on getting the ideal solution for nn schools anchored in policy and/or an official guideline but every single one of them petered out with not even a 'no consensus' closure. Individuals, usually in roughly 12-month cycles, have a go at changing things through the back-door of mass AfDs, but that won't work either as Epeefleche is beginning to find out. School articles, whether notable or not, are generally not toxic so if the current practice ain't broke, there's no need to fix it. So I'll continue to vote 'redirect' in such cases until there is a firm consensus to do otherwise, and then I'll quite happily abide by whatever decision that happens to be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I simply don't see the "Blue Ribbon" thing as really that big of a deal and not something to get it past GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per DGG. A school can be notable even if its a middle school, though the number is not very great.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Much of this discussion revolved around WP:OUTCOMES, which, while it is a useful prediction tool, is not a method for determining whether an article should be kept or deleted. The method that must be used is WP:GNG, regardless of whether some would inexplicably "consider the GNG irrelevant" in this case. Nearly all of the keep votes in this AfD are entirely unconvincing, relying on made-up criteria for notability like the Blue Ribbon School of Excellence. MelanieN attempts to show that the school meets the GNG by referring to some of the sources in the article. However, looking at the sources, I see nothing that rises above routine, local coverage of non-notable events that have happened at the school, like student test score results, the blue ribbon award, and the various events revolving around the school's location and land. There is no significant coverage in national/international publications, or publications that are outside the immediate local area of the school. In my opinion, none of this coverage rises to the level required by GNG. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 00:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The region you classify as "the immediate local area" (greater Los Angeles, i.e. the home region for the LA Times) has roughly the same total population as the Netherlands. That doesn't seem particularly local to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 16 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. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 01:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hickins[edit]

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

On the surface, this looks like a passable biographical article. But the sourcing is atrocious - either dead links or inappropriate resources - and the subject's literary output appears to be mostly self-published and undistinguished. The writing tries to give the subject a sense of notability via his educational and professional associations, but I don't see this coming close to WP:GNG or WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable writer with a couple of self-published books. Being a Wall Street Journal does not automatically make you notable. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've culled all of the unsourced, promotional prose from the article. I figure we can re-add it as we find sourcing. Right now the biggie is to find enough to show notability. I'm finding a few things, although one of them (namely the Seattle PI source) is a little dodgy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone asks, I would say that this source would likely be unusable since it's so brief. This one gives off the hope of more sources, since he's cited in an academic-type book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a weak keep, as I'm finding coverage for his first book/collection and I can see where it is used in at least one college's curriculum. I'll see if I can find more, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I wish I had more sources than this, as the majority of these sources are trade reviews. I'm sort of leery about the Seattle PI review, as it came from BlogCritics.org, but the site does have an editorial board that reportedly approves everything before it is sent out to various different locations so I'll still count it as usable. There's just enough here to assert a weak notability, although it will likely need watching to ensure it isn't reverted to a promotional state. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book that was reviewed is self-published through iUniverse, a vanity press. Wefihe (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to remember is that being self-published or vanity published does not automatically mean non-notable. Being self-published just means that it's far less likely that the work in question will receive any coverage, but it's not an automatic "no, not notable" on that basis alone. It all boils down to whether or not the person has received coverage. This guy is on the borderline, but we shouldn't penalize him just because he went the self-publishing route. I know we have a lot of people coming on here to make their own articles about their self-published works, but that doesn't mean that every self-published author automatically fails notability guidelines just because they self-publish. That's kind of a dangerous mindset to have, if I can be so bold as to say that. We should judge notability based on sources, not whether or not they're published through a "real" publisher. I mean, look at Hugh Howey. He's a self-published author whose works gained quite a bit of coverage before Simon & Schuster decided to pick them up. Then there's books such as Fifty Shades of Grey and Amy Fisher's "If I Knew Then" book, both of which were highly successful in self-published/vanity format way before they were picked up by other publishers. It's just not a good mindset to automatically view a book/author as non-notable just because they self-published as opposed to going through a mainstream publisher. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fifty Shades of Grey and If I Knew Then wound up being republished by professional publishing companies. This writer's work, however, was not. Also, I cannot find any interviews with the writer connected to his works. The fact remains that the writer's literary career is almost entirely involved in vanity press output. And a BlogCritics.org review is hardly helpful - from my understanding, they review everything that is sent to them. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notability is not temporary. His book received coverage and even if the book is never picked up again and all of the existent copies are destroyed, if the book/author is considered to pass WP:NBOOK or WP:NAUTHOR, that notability will remain until the guidelines are changed and made more exclusive/strict. I'm not super gung ho about keeping this article, but I don't like the idea of arguing deletion because he's self-published and his first book is currently out of print. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr Hickens has no notability in his own right. His "Michael Missing" book, which is the only work of his that was published by a real publisher, went out of print and Mr Hickens began self-publishing it in 2000. I don't think vanity press writers qualify for articles. Wefihe (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, It's surprising that this has been nominated for deletion. Possibly a notability tag (If anything). Revisit this in say 6 - 12 months to see if output has continuity. I see he's authored nine or more books and is an editor for Wall St Journal. He's had a good output. (Joecreation (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)) [reply]

Comment , the article does need good amount of work to make it acceptable. (Joecreation (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Nearly all of his books are released by a vanity press service. And his work as an editor is equally undistinguished. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a self/vanity-published author does NOT mean that someone is automatically non-notable. SP books can still gain coverage and become notable. It's not exactly a common occurrence, but being self-published does not automatically mean non-notable. If you want to argue that he is non-notable, you need to argue that he's non-notable based on a lack of coverage. (IE, "delete because his self-published books have received no coverage in reliable sources or not enough to merit an article".) Arguing for deletion based on the fact that he is predominantly self-published is a very weak argument and probably should be listed at WP:NOT as an argument not to make at AfD. Many self-published authors are non-notable, but there are exceptions and we should not automatically make arguments that boil down to "delete because self-published". In some AfDs you can argue that they're a typical non-notable author, but please do not make the argument that he should be deleted because he is self-published. Specifying why his SPBs are non-notable (ie, not enough or no sources) will save a lot of time and keep people from trying to get AfD consensuses overturned at WP:DR on the basis that there was a bias against/for self-published authors. I can't stress this enough because there have been cases where Wikipedia has been specifically accused of being biased against anyone who self-publishes and isn't a mainstream published author. It's not guaranteed that this will end up being one of those times where someone accuses us of being biased, but it's better to be careful and not fan the flames by giving them fuel to back up their accusations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone whose literary output is the product of a vanity press service is not notable, either by Wikipedia standards or literary standards. It is not a question of bias, but a question of logic. None of Mr. Hickins's self-published books have made any impact on contemporary American literature, nor is Mr. Hickins the subject of any substantial independent media coverage because of his fiction. I agree that there are exceptions to notable self-published writers, but a serial vanity press customer like Mr. Hickins is obviously not one of these exceptions. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being self-published is not an automatic non-notable status. It just means that they're highly likely to be non-notable, but it's not a guarantee. All I'm really trying to get across is that we shouldn't automatically say that someone is non-notable because they self-publish (vanity or otherwise) because there's more to proving notability than whether or not someone publishes through CreateSpace or Simon & Schuster. Someone can publish through one of the Big Four, yet still utterly fail notability guidelines. The problem with saying that being self-published means non-notable is that we're also implying that being published through a big publishing company will give that notability. It all boils down to coverage in reliable sources and that's how we should phrase things in a deletion discussion. Being self-published makes it unlikely that someone will gain sources, is all. I'd just prefer that if you're arguing for deletion, that you say that he hasn't received enough coverage in reliable sources rather than "he's self-published, which means he's non-notable". You could say that "Barton is like your typical self-published author in that he lacks the coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:NBOOK or WP:NAUTHOR", but we shouldn't go about saying "Barton is self-published, delete". Whether or not you mean it to come across like a bias, that's how it comes across. We need to judge notability based on the availability and depth of the available coverage- not on what someone's publishing status is. Yes, the publishing status can have an impact on the coverage, but saying "self-published, delete" isn't really how we should argue for deletion. I'm not really doing this in order to argue that the guy should be kept, I just really would prefer that people base their deletion arguments based on coverage in RS. It's no different than when we have people coming in and arguing "this book was published through Penguin, so notable" because you're not giving any sort of explanation as to why being self-published makes him non-notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will say it: "Barton is like your typical self-published author in that he lacks the coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:NBOOK or WP:NAUTHOR." The article also fails WP:BIO. I am really surprised that you are putting up such a vigorous defense over such an insignificant article - especially one that is so poorly sourced and which fails to offer any clue of the subject's notability as a fiction writer or a journalist. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not over the article. I could honestly care less if this article survives or gets deleted. What bothers me is how you phrased your deletion rationale. Nothing may come of this in the end with this specific AfD, but we need to be very, very careful about how we phrase our AfD arguments. Not only could someone have a field day with a perceived bias at deletion review or in the media (who loves to point out how fallible Wikipedia is), but it sends out a very mixed message to people coming in for the reasons I stated above. We need to be able to clearly state why something/someone fails GNG because otherwise they don't understand why the article is getting deleted and this can cause a lot of issues in the long run. Even though in most cases self-published means non-notable, that's not always the case and sometimes just saying "self-published, non-notable" can give off the impression that we didn't look hard enough for sources or do everything we could. I'm not saying that you didn't look, just that we have to think about how it looks to other people. That's why it's so important for us to put in stuff about the subject/person lacking reliable sources. I just don't want people to think that we didn't look for sources or that we're just automatically assuming that no sources exist because something is fringe/indie/self-published/promotional/etc. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In future, I would strongly recommend that you please review WP:AGF. Your assertion that I did not look for sources prior to listing this AfD is utterly insulting - I actually spent a great deal of time doing research to determine the viability of this article and its subject. And no one is going to "have a field day with a perceived bias" over a clearly stated fact that the subject's literary output is almost entirely based in vanity press output. What a bizarre idea! And as I very clearly stated in the AfD nomination, the sourcing is terrible and the original article (which has since been edited, but not improved) tried to give Mr. Hickins a degree of notability by putting him in association with well regarded individuals and institutions. There is no evidence that Mr. Hickins has achieved any professional accomplishment that warrants inclusion on Wikipedia, as per this website's editorial guidelines. The article is a complete failure of WP:BIO and deserves to go. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to walk away now, but I want to say that this wasn't solely directed at you- it was also directed at User:Wefihe, whose argument was mainly that the book was self-published and didn't even really mention anything about sourcing. My big concern is that I just want people to be cautious about this sort of thing because there is a big automatic assumption that self-published books are notable and a lot of people are just arguing for deletion based upon that alone, as in Wefihe's deletion argument. We have to be very, very careful about how we phrase things because lately I've seen people post deletion rationales with the argument "indie film, non-notable" or "fringe professor, NN", and so on. We need to just be careful about how we phrase things when making deletion or keep rationales. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...there is a big automatic assumption that self-published books are notable." Where? Certainly not in the publishing industry, where iUniverse and Lulu and Xlibris and those other vanity press sites have zero credibility. Wefihe (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On a side note, if anyone can track down the actual reviews listed in the Amazon "editorial reviews" sections, this would help solidify his notability as he's apparently been reviewed by the Review of Contemporary Fiction and Hartford Courant. ([21], [22]) We can't use the one from Columbia University, since he attended the college and they have a good reason to give him a positive review since it reflects well on them. Also seems to have been written (in an editorial aspect) in this article by IEEE. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 2 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 20:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - meets WP:AUTHOR per book reviews listed in the article, and per User:Tokyogirl79's analysis and rationale above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really??? Let's take a look at WP:AUTHOR, which says: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - Two or three brief reviews is not the same being the recipient of multiple reviews; it is also unclear whether Blogcritics meets Wikipedia requirements. In any event, he also fails to meet every other aspect of WP:AUTHOR. Wefihe (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote is based upon the following book reviews:

Kirkus
Publishers Weekly
~~Bookverdict~~ Library Journal (subscription required)
"Picks and Pans Review: The Actual Adventures of Michael Missing". People Magazine

Note that the Bookverdict review is paywalled (see WP:PAYWALL), and has more content than appears onscreen. The subject meets WP:AUTHOR in my opinion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The People Magazine review is not online anymore - I removed the dead link. The Kirkus and Publishers Weekly reviews are one paragraph write-ups - not exactly an in-depth review. I never heard of Bookverdict and I am not interested in paying to read this. I have to agree with Wefihe in that two one-paragraph reviews and one review that is not accessible makes for a pretty flimsy argument for WP:AUTHOR. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The People Magazine link may be able to be found using web archive services, so I've restored it to the article and added a dead link template. Regarding paywalled links, please read WP:PAYWALL, where it states "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible...Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access..." NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment, It's time someone did some work to improve article more. At moment I'm unable to do much as I'm having work done at home and that's time consuming. If I have an hour or 2 spare in the next few days I may have a go. But for now someone should do some work and we'll see. Thanks (Joecreation (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Multiple book reviews noted in the article. BTW the review is by Library Journal not Bookverdict which licensed and republished the content from LJ. Another link.[23] Any links behind a paywall can be verified via WP:REX. -- GreenC 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I've revised my !vote above to reflect the original review source, and changed it to a straight keep. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since almost all of the sources in this still-deficient BLP point to the "Michael Missing" book, it might make sense to rewrite the article into a profile of the book. Hickins still fails WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has notability with various reviews of his works. Frmorrison (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nearly all of the reviews are for his "Michael Missing" book, with a single review for the self-published "Blomqvist." Again, the article fails WP:BIO - if anything, the article, if not deleted, should be rewritten with a focus on "Michael Missing" and not on its elusive author. And, by the way, when the hell is this AfD going to be over? This has been going on for nearly three weeks. And Adoil Descended (talk) 16:07, 16 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. Discussions about editorial concerns (trimming inappropriate content, merging content, and/or renaming) can take place on the article's talk page -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance Region in Pipe Flow[edit]

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

Unsourced original research Jac16888 ^Talk 18:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs work certainly, and likely renaming, but this seems to be a well-documented phenomenon in fluid dynamics literature. Related to turbulence and laminar flow but I'm not an expert in this area. Tagging for expert attention. Ivanvector (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The dynamics of pipe flow is a well-studied phenomenon in fluid dynamics and hydraulics; this article is about the transition region as fluid enters a pipe. The idea of a transition region and the associated entrance length are well known in the field, being covered in textbooks and sites like BrightHub. The article is well-written, but could use better sourcing. We might consider renaming the article to Entrance length, which is often the main quantity of interest in the transition to fully developed flow. We already have an article on the related thermal entrance length, but this article is about the hydrodynamic aspect. --Mark viking (talk) 20:35, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 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 no consensus. poor non-policy based rationales on the keep side, but not enough discussion for a consensus Secret ^account 19:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Mountain Community Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, no independent sources provided Gamaliel (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it hard to believe that a 100-year-old church, one of the largest in California, led for 25 years by Tim LaHaye, is not notable. I have started looking for sources and have added four to the article so far; however, they may not yet be enough for GNG. I will keep looking. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to Tim LaHaye. Despite my initial impression, I was not able to find enough sourcing to make this church notable. It could be redirected to its former pastor Tim LaHaye. I suggest the former paster rather than the current pastor David Jeremiah, because LaHaye is clearly notable and his article is here to stay, whereas I am not so sure that Jeremiah would survive an AfD. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A search on [David Jeremiah TBN] returns as the first link [24], which means he is getting worldwide attention. This source documents that these worldwide telecasts are recorded at Shadow Mountain Community Church in San Diego. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to just one of two notable (has Wikipedia article) pastors associated with the church seems inadequate; i voted Keep below. --do ncr am 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a megachurch [25], and megachurches are presumed to be wp:notable. This particular church gets attention via an international television network. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to the relevant guideline that makes this point? I'm not familiar with notability precedents for churches. Gamaliel (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has a long-standing precedent. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. Megachurches often do get enough coverage to meet GNG; if they don't, they don't. There is no presumption of notability.^{[citation needed]} BTW in the list of megachurches linked to here by Unscintillating, Shadow Mountain does not make it into the top 200. I already deleted from the article, as disproven, the claim to be "one of the largest churches in California". --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that any ministry carried on TBN probably has more viewers than the largest megachurch in the world has weekend attendees? Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and irrelevant. The guideline is GNG, not viewership or attendees. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is WP:N, which is not limited to WP:GNG. So your answer is that you don't know how many TV viewers this church has. Your claim to have "disproven" the largeness of this church does not stand. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 15 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 19:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Tebow event organized/sponsored by the church (already linked above, and it being a megachurch, make it notable, don't need to look further. --do ncr am 01:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that Tebow story; I even added it to the article, back when I was trying to prove notability, before deciding it wasn't much. The church gets mentioned in a single sentence. Are you claiming that the church inherits notability from Tebow? --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a big event. The article describes the church as having "sponsored" it, and in the context of the article i interpret that the church organized it (the big event). You don't get 26,000 Americans coming to stadiums for anything religious, easily. The church seems notable to me. --do ncr am 03:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- My first reaction was that this was a rather typical local church, which we would not normally keep. However as two successive pastors are notable, I would suggest that the church probably is too; redirecting to either would not be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I caught the last five minutes of the Turning Point Wednesday broadcast. I can verify that the church is a part of the broadcast. Specifically what I saw were three camera viewpoints: the pastor behind a pulpit, three congregants in a closeup, and a wide view of the congregants consistent with the possibility of 5400 in weekend attendance. In other reading, I learned that TBN is now the third largest broadcast network in the United States as well as the largest religious network in the world. While looking for other material, I saw in a Google snippet, internet chatter that indicates that the church's broadcasts air in South Africa. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that that is not 'verification' by Wikipedia's standards. What you saw may be accepted in a court of law, or may not depending on the local system. Here, we require that something is verifiable by other people. We need a reputable book to look up, a reliable independent website to click on, a non-local newspaper of good repute to check in. 'Internet chatter' isn't worth the paper it's written on. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to doncram's remark "You don't get 26,000 Americans coming to stadiums for anything religious, easily" - if that had been 'Brits' I might agree. In Iran, the USA and South Korea, I'd say you had the best chances in the world of getting an attendance like that. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My specific statement with the use of the word "verify" is,

"I can verify that the church is a part of the broadcast."

Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is that I did not say "wp:verify", I did not Wikilink the word to WP:V, and I could change the word to "state" without changing the meaning of my statement; so your objection is without a foundation. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second point is that this is a talk page (see WP:TPG), not an article page. Core content policies such as WP:V don't and can't apply to talk pages. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The third point is that this TV broadcast counts as a publication by a WP:RS, so as far as I know, my statement is fully WP:V verifiable. This particular show airs three times a week, so there are plenty of opportunities for editors and readers to wp:verify, and a church this big will likely have CDs or DVDs. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for "internet chatter", why do you think I would characterize it as such? Does it occur to you that I don't personally consider "internet chatter" to satisfy WP:V? Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 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 While this second relisting hasn't expired, it has been over 7 days, thus I'm exercising my ability to close any time after 7 days. This has been an unusual discussion, with struck votes and debates on a dozen different policy points, but two in particular stand out. As for WP:GNG, there seems to people on both sides of the discussion but leaning toward him failing this standard. That alone would be enough, but in all honestly WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does matter any time it is requested, and I tend to believe the authenticity of the request. Looking at that policy see see a key sentence: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.". They is, how do we define non-public figures? Following the link we get: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article.". Even if we are to stretch WP:GNG to the limit and declare him to pass, thus be notable (a premise that I do not subscribe to), it is unlikely he would be so notable as to deny him deletion under this policy. As such, I find a consensus to delete, for it doesn't cleanly pass WP:GNG, and even if it did, it would quality for deletion via WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Teman[edit]

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

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

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

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

Former failed PROD. Subject fails WP:BIO. He's won a couple non-notable awards for founding JCorps. Only news coverage comes from the AirBnB sex party and from the 2014 defamation lawsuit, the latter which keeps getting quietly deleted from the article. Reads more like a promotional C.V. than a biography, but maintenance tags to that point also keep getting deleted. Even the images associated with the article are not properly attributed, unless one assumes they were uploaded by Mr Teman himself, which brings up major WP:COI issues as the uploader is the article's main author. Ashanda (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, this has been addressed previously and previous nominations for deletion have been ruled against. Secondly, there are hundreds of press articles about Teman, not including ones on the AirBNB story, covering his comedy, entrepreneurship, activism, and technological innovations. Teman has (1) been featured in major press nationally and internationally (2) founded two international conferences (taking place in the USA and Canada), attended by over 5200 and featured on TED as "Best of the Web" and recognized by major press in those industries (3) was recognized by The White House for founding JCorps (this is sourced and is public information as are all White House guests and honorees) (4) founded GatherGrid which was also featured in Inc and is used by thousands. The photos uploaded are public record and used in multiple news articles covering Teman. Being recognized by The White House, Mayor Bloomberg, and by the Jewish Federations of North America (151 sub chapters, and over 570,000 votes in the competition) are all notable awards, as is being in a TV show with Stephen Fry on the BBC. This is getting to be a bit much and it is undoubtedly the work of a rather unsavory stalker as discussed on the Talk page of Ari Teman. 137.63.63.54 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@137.63.63.54: If you could please provide the link to where this previous discussion took place, I would appreciate reading it. Also, be careful -- your final statements border on violating the No personal attacks policy. Thank you. Ashanda (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There goes Ari, editing his own article, this time he chose a new IP, right after his old one (173.56.18.121) was blocked. And of course Ari himself fails to give credit to a co-founder of one of his conferences, cites among his accomplishments that a publication thought two of his jokes were funny, removes clear evidence that the $25,000 prize did not go to charity, removes two well sourced lawsuits against him, states that he earned honors in college but provides no evidence, tells the audience about each award he receives three times in his own article, etc. etc. etc. Maybe he is sufficiently notable, but for his notoriety rather than his accomplishments. Most recent non-Ari edited version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ari_Teman&oldid=614713613 ArtTenak (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtTenak: Please do not engage in personal attacks. Stick to the subject of this discussion, which is whether or not this article is notable enough for retention in the encyclopedia. Thank you. Ashanda (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the prize (http://www.jewishcommunityheroes.org/pages/rules) says explicitly that the donation goes to the 501(c)3, which it did here: "The Hero of the Year will be provided with a grant to be used as an investment in their community project or non-profit effort via his or her local Jewish Federation, or another recognized 501(c)3 charitable entity or Canadian equivalent":
The website of the conference says explicitly that Teman is the founder: http://12gurusCharity.com/s/about.php as do multiple news sources. http://www.gizmodo.in/news/AirBNB-No-Thanks-for-the-quotXXX-Freak-Festquot-You-Brought-to-My-Home-NSFW/articleshow/32163734.cms . It would not be surprising to learn ArtTenak is or is an associate of Jonah Halper who a track record of dishonest behavior (and dishonestly claims to be the "Founder" of the conferences on his Altruicity website and linked-in. Clearly this is part of that same game, or ArtTenak is a fool falling for it.).137.63.63.30 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess it is no surprise that the website says exactly what the organization wants to say, but it is clearly then not a third party source. Is gizmodo.in a sufficient source for Wikipedia? Is an article about a Freakfest the place where the Freakfest article's author would verify the founding of a conference?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12gurus has been in business since far before NextGen and has NJ incorporation papers establishing that it existed years before the NextGen conferences. These are public record.137.63.63.30 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is good, perhaps 137.63.63.65 could provide a link?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear that ArtTenak is (1) acting vindictively (2) violating both the rules against discussing contributor's identities and (3) violating WP:NPA.
The history of the page has multiple instances of this attack by the likely same person using fake aliases "KLetters", "ArtTenak" and IP addresses (see Talk page and Talk Page history).
The vandal has been blocked by admins, and is now working with suspicious accounts to suggest the deletion of an article on someone who runs multiple international organizations and covered by hundreds of press features. This is obviously an attack and not a valid edit or suggestion of non-notability.137.63.63.30 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is 137.63.63.65 one of the suspicious accounts? It only appeared a couple days ago.ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@137.63.63.30: Please do not engage in personal attacks. I opened this discussion in good faith, please stop asserting otherwise. Also, I ask you again to supply a link to the previous discussion(s) regarding deletion of this article that you mentioned in your first post. Thank you. Ashanda (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ari_Teman&oldid=600030341 and multiple other unregistered wikipedia users have made similar denied requests .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) states the requirements: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Teman has been covered multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject (JCorps, GatherGrid, 12gurus Conferences, Comedy, Patents, AirBNB, Jewish Community Hero, White House, etc.) Additionally, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]" An international award, multiple other awards, and the creation of an ongoing international NGO all fulfill these requirements.

It is not a personal attack to state that someone (ArtTenak , who may be KLetters of previous clear vandalism) is vandalizing a page when they are doing so blatantly with false facts, and removing positive awards and facts. The motive is clear. 137.63.63.188 (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the motive is clear?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the subject's own web site as proof of the subject's assertions is not a verifiable third party reference. You can not in one breath say that the co-founder's web site's statement is not sufficient but that the other co-founder's web site is. Also, this ignores that there is a verified video, containing both co-founders each referenced as a co-founder.ArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't 137.63.63.30 acting vindictively? Is 137.63.63.30 the subject of the article?ArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a vandal. I have not been blockedArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Telling the joke of the week in an entertainment publication is not a notable award.ArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being selected among thousands of comedians for only 1 spot, and with only about 40 selected yearly, in the biggest city in the world, in a publication read by over 2 million people is notable. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the joke of the week is notable, is there a Wikipedia page of jokes of the week?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just violate the rules you are stating that others have violated?ArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the person who is so very interested in Ari's Wikipedia page create an account for himself instead of posting from an anonymous IP address?ArtTenak (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ArtTenak, who are you? Real name, why are you "so very interested in Ari's Wikipedia page"? You seem to have an avid interest in Jonah Halper as well. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the fact that someone rented the subject's apartment for a weekend and that it was written about in The New York Post a notable accomplishment of the article's subject? ArtTenak (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was the #1 story on the internet, feature in over 93 publications, from the NYTimes (today's edition), LA Times, Time, Today Show, Howard, Fox, CBS, ABC, Fusion, PIX, and on TV and press in China, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Ireland, Englad, France...I can keep going... 93 is a lot. Clearly all those publications and media thought it was notable. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make it a notable accomplishment of the article subject? Wouldn't the article subject be better citing his notable actions rather than a notable mistake in which he became an unwitting facilitator of a sex party?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would lawsuits involving the subject not be notable and be deleted by 137.63.63.188 and its predecessor 173.56.18.121?ArtTenak (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a predecessed by any account. Stop the personal attacks and accusations unless you wish to disclose your real name or have it disclosed via lawsuit. If I were the subject, I'd subpoena your identity in a defamation suit, and likely add Ashanda given the accusation of non-notability is clearly damaging and false, that is: defamation. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You deny you are 173.56.18.121?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it's good that 173.56.18.121 and 137.63.63.65 are not Ari Teman. 137.63.63.65 in particular might want to talk to Ari before threatening a lawsuit on Ari's behalf, given all of the lawsuits that Ari has already been party to, including the one we learned about at the top of the page. Ari probably doesn't need the headache of a new lawsuit. But maybe he does, all press is good press, right?ArtTenak (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This venue is for discussion of whether or not to delete this article only. Content disputes should be kept to the article's own talk page. If you both continue your disruptive editing, you may both be sanctioned. Stop now. Also, do not place your replies into the middle of other editors' posts, it makes the discussion impossible to follow. Ashanda (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious given the number of categories for which this has been included that the subject has done multiple notable things and this has become a silly, obvious attack by some sort of vindictive vandal. Nominating someone who has been recognized by multiple organizations, including The White House, Jewish Federations, and hundreds of publications (including ones like Inc, NY Times, Time, LA TImes, in addition to many local and regional, Jewish and non-Jewish papers) for deletion says more about Wikipedia and its use as a tool to harass, defame, and bully a person than it does about the subject, Ari Teman. Note that Mr. Teman has multiple patents, so notable, in fact, they've been cited by Google in their own later IP: http://www.google.com/patents/US20090248806#forward-citations . So there we have for a single individual notable achievements in: technology, business, social activism, books, awards, comedy, and the #1 trending story on the internet. Really, are we having a discussion about notability? This is bullying. Obvious, childish, bullying that earned Wikipedia a reputation from which it has long tried to distance itself. Shame. Instead of stopping the obvious vandals making false accusations of porn, fictional founders, racism, etc., you're enabling the attack. I vote to end this discusson now. There is only one voice. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks the indepth coverage needed for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lawsuit regarding this Wikipedia Article NOTE: this Wikipedia entry and one of its editors was served with a defamation lawsuit right before this discussion began and ArtTenak appeared. Obviously that may influence someone's incentive to have this article deleted. This article should not be deleted until that case is resolved. 137.63.63.65 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to the lawsuit? Wikipedia only wants verified statements. Thank you. ArtTenak (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has in depth coverage needed for notability, as well as having won multiple awards, and being CEO of multiple organizations. Also, this discussion was not begun until someone was sued for using the editing of this article to defame the subject. Here is a **sample** of in depth TV and print coverage, there are over 100 more articles and appearances:

MSNBC: https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-business/openforum/videos/better-your-business-norm-brodsky-ari-teman/;
JPOST: http://www.jpost.com/Arts-and-Culture/Entertainment/Seriously-funny ,
JTA (newswire) : http://www.jta.org/2009/11/10/life-religion/jcorps-founder-wins-first-jewish-community-hero-award
BBC Fry's Planet World with Stephen Fry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fry's_Planet_Word#.22Identity.22
Algemeiner on Hurricane Sandy : http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/11/01/jewish-youth-groups-volunteer-assistance-in-sandys-aftermath/
Jewish Week "36 Under 36" (national paper -- largest in the country): http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/36_under_36_next_wave_social_justice_global_change
INC MAGAZINE: http://inc.com/will-yakowicz/how-to-make-the-most-out-of-an-orgy.html
NY TImes (this Sunday): www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/fashion/summer-rentals-the-complicated-etiquette.html
JTA (newswire) on Ari being official White House guest and joking for Obama: http://www.jta.org/2009/12/22/news-opinion/politics/from-holiday-to-chanukah-a-busy-week-in-d-c
Over 93 articles on AirBNB (I'm not listing them all, but it certainly counts as in-depth). 137.63.63.65 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If those involved in the alleged lawsuit care so much about what it says on a particular wikipedia page at a particular time, they will take time to make sure to create a record of that. We should not alter policies or procedures to aid people involved in lawsuits who cannot be bothered to make a copy of the page as it is when they allege defamantion, a very easy things to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:BIO. Sam Sailor ^Sing 10:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Individual has articles in the press for over 10 years, has run three international organizations (each with thousands of members) in the press as far back as 2007, was covered in the press for his interaction with Barack Obama (that photo mysteriously deleted from page, needs to be re-added, as it's in public domain), has won multiple awards, holds patents (cited by Google, too). Thus "WP:TOOSOON" doesn't apply since he's already accomplished these things and been noted for them in multiple RS. WP:BIO is answered by user:Shawn in Montreal correctly: "We do have enough non-minor coverage, for me. My rule of thumb is at least 3 RS, which we have in the NY Post, J Post & Inc. magazine articles alone." And another 100+ articles. NYClay770 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~We do have enough non-minor coverage, for me. My rule of thumb is at least 3 RS, which we have in the NY Post, J Post & Inc. magazine articles alone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the coverage is for WP:1EVENT, the rest is mostly superficial or promotional. Ashanda (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~As Shawn in Montreal said, "We do have enough non-minor coverage... Multiple RS, which we have in the NY Post, J Post & Inc. magazine" (plus as of this week: NY Times). However, I am asking the administrators here to view the ArtTenak page and consider a full ban given repeated violations (3 reverts, uncited sources, defamatory langauge) and that it's clearly solely dedicated to bash Mr. Teman. Also to increase protection on this page to not allow auto-approvals. I'm sure a review of the subject headings created by ArtTenak will be seen clearly for what they are. Please revert to last accepted revision before ArtTenak. NYClay770 (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: repeated vandal user:ArtTenak has been banned by Wikipedia Admin for " (Disruptive editing: Single purpose account engaging in persistent tendentious editing, BLP-issues and edit warring on Ari Teman)".

Given that user:ArtTenak was the sole driver of the Deletion request, has been acknowledged to be in violation, and the majority of votes are Keep (citing over 10 RS including NY Times, Inc, JPost, BBC, Today Show, etc), I ask that the deletion request be removed as it is disparaging to Ari Teman. NYClay770 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd should run its course. What's more you appear to be a WP:SPA editor and the closing admin will certainly take that into account. I'm !voting keep, but this process works by consensus and the blocked editor is not the only deletion !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shawn, I am not a WP:SPA . I have edited, corrected, and created many articles. I switched accounts due to repeated harassment and vandalism from this, to prevent previous articles I've edited from being vandalized, too by this rather vindictive Kletters/ArtTenak, but you can see my recent updates in my contribution page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NYClay770 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYClay770 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sole driver"? How about the person who nominated it in the first place? You accuse me of sockpuppettry, then go on to admit it yourself. I'm happy to submit to a WP:CHECKUSER, are you? How's the weather in the Seychelles, or are you still using the NYC FiOS account to access an WP:OPENPROXY? The sad thing is that if you had calmly argued your case, you had a decent chance of winning it, but by wildly violating multiple policies, you're certainly not winning any friends. So, no, I DO NOT withdraw this nomination. Thank you. Ashanda (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my personal comments. Sorry for losing my temper at the repeated accusations. Ashanda (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator To summarize for any admins perusing this discussion for closing; despite the excessive verbiage, there have been two !votes for keep, and ~~two~~ three !votes for delete -- including my nom. The seeming extra keep arguments are all from the same user using several IPs and logged in once as well. I'm unsure that consensus is clear here, I'd ask for an extension of discussion. Thank you. Ashanda (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:Ashanda admits that this is a temper-driven nomination. He then violates the terms of not identifying a contributor. He is clearly biased and his nomination is a temper-driven harassment, by his own admission. I urge him to be blocked from Ari Teman and this discussion. This is really a sad example of what Wikipedia can be. NYClay770 (talk) 18:19, 7 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 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lot of talk about this but on review of the article, other than the "Freak Fest" at his apartment and the recent business lawsuit he might bein, all of the information is old about the subject, and even he is too old to participate in Jcorps (up to age 30) and has not held a 12Gurus conference recently according to the websights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.227.56 (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- — 71.167.227.56 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really: all of it? The Jerusalem Post feature, for one, is neither "old," nor about any of those topics. Also, per WP:N#TEMP and WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, "old information" doesn't seem to me to be a reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Shawn in Montreal, user: Ashanda admits he's got a temper and bias against Ari Teman. I'm sure a subpeona of "71.167.227.56" will show the user to be the same person defaming and harrassing Teman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYClay770 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanda admits temper and bias in this post, above. From saying things like "the sad thing is that if you had calmly argued your case, you had a decent chance of winning it" and "Striking my personal comments. Sorry for losing my temper", user:Ashanda has shown clearly his bias. Further his accusations of violating WP:Policy while himself violating it repeatedly is further evidence of his bias. He then filed another report ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Misbehavior_at_the_Ari_Teman_AfD ) where he suspiciously neglects to mention his fellow vandals: user:KLetters, user:ArtTenak (banned), user:Demenac234,user:68.143.198.222,user:108.30.243.78,user:38.96.141.68,user:38.108.195.50,user:47.23.40.34. Mentioning only one side and not the other is the very definition of bias. I request that user:Ashanda be banned and this discussion (really, harassment) be closed. NYClay770 (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. This guy is only known because he rented his apartment out to someone he met on the internet. The sources don't give sufficient depth of coverage, aren't reliable, or aren't intellectually independent of one another. Gossip newspapers are not reliable sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, okay this is all becoming moot if the article subject is a) asking for it to be deleted and b) apparently now engaging in legal action but I should just like to point out, not for the first time, that the Jerusalem Post, for one, is not a "gossip newspaper," nor is it reporting on the apartment thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shawn in Montreal, these people aren't worth convincing. Anyone arguing that the Jerusalem Post (JCorps) or New York Times or Inc Magazine (gathergrid) or JTA is a "gossip rag" is not worth the time to respond. Wikipedia has proven itself to be fertile ground for harassment and defamation, with you being a rare exception. It's unfortunate and not the vision outlined by user:Jimbo_Wales. Thanks for your help. When I'm up in Montreal doing a show say hello if you'd like. AriTeman (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . This is Ari Teman. I am not sure how to verify that, but you can see the length of time this account has existed, and a Wikipedia admin may email me if they're able (the email goes to my domain). I'm asking you to delete this article, not because there's any ground, but because this entry (Ari Teman) has become nothing more than a tool for anonymous cowards to defame and harass. They've falsely accused me of acting in porn, stealing from charity, being racist. So please just delete this. It will be a valuable loss, but I'm tired of alerts about vandalism. Thanks to user:Shawn in Montreal. I suspect I'll learn the true identities of a few of the other accounts when the subpoenas come back. - Ari AriTeman (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help: https://twitter.com/AriTeman/status/486223401322037248 . Really disappointed in Wikipedia, but I'm tired of the alerts and defamation. Costly, damaging, and mentally traumatizing (Good job, stalkers!). It needs to stop. Please delete this tool for stalkers. AriTeman (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AriTeman, if you're up here at Just for Laughs I'll try and check you out. In the meantime, I suspect we'll have administrator action before too long but if it doesn't happen fast enough you could always e-mail info-en-q@wikimedia.org or visit here and contact the foundation, with a link to this Afd. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AriTeman: I agree that the vandalism of this article regarding you being vandalized is unacceptable. Wikipedia takes articles on living persons very seriously. Egregious violators are blocked, often without warning according to policy, and if this article survives this AfD, I amongst others can keep this on our watchlist to make sure similar BLP vandalism does not recur. That being said, that last sentence borders on a a legal threat and is also against policy, if you do have serious issues, I recommend contacting the General Counsel for Wikimedia directly. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "threaten" to sue. I sued. I also didn't sue Wikipedia. I don't see a need to sue Wikipedia if it cooperates within the Law (Frankly after the YEARS of the bullshit on this article, I don't care what your "policies" are. You've got to delusional if you expect me to respect your policies with the way this article has been raped by any random hoodlum and stalker who comes across it.) When the law is broken I go to law enforcement and lawyers, not anonymous Wikipedia admins. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as other editors have pointed out (though they may have exposed bias) that Mr. Teman's endeavours have been well-documented by reliable news sources for several years. Founder of multiple notable international organizations, author of at least a few books, first winner of a national Jewish community foundation award, unfortunately involved recently in a couple of unsavoury incidents. Any one of these taken separately would likely fail WP:BLP1E but there's enough of them, and enough coverage, to warrant a keep. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allows a non-public figure to request deletion of their own article, but I don't think the definition applies to Mr. Teman based on the guideline. I feel that if he were not threatening to sue us we would not be considering deletion, and in fact his intimidation has coerced at least one editor to strike their !vote. WP:NPOV is one of our oldest policies, and we fail it if we let individuals use bullying and legal threats to control the information we include here. Ivanvector (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not intimidation. There's been slagging on both sides and the article subject says enough. I changed my !vote willingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is intimidation, whether it's intended or not, and whether or not you were actually moved by it. Telling someone that we can put aside our policies and guidelines because they have lawyers is a terrible precedent to set. Ivanvector (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been comments made here -- on both sides -- that are defamatory, and we do have strict policies against that. You've got an article subject who barely meets WP:BIO, at most. I'd say common sense dictates we just end this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I've said is defamatory. Defamatory statements require falsehood. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is someone seeking continued employment in the entertainment industry, among other pursuits, who (allegedly) created their own article three years ago, and (allegedly) used multiple accounts to maintain their article during that time. That may or may not have been a violation of WP:SPA, that's for a different discussion. Then, more recently, the subject got themselves into some legal trouble and drew some negative publicity, and suddenly they're here trying to get that negative info removed, (once again allegedly) abusing multiple accounts and making legal threats to try to force control over their content. This is exactly what WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is not for. Yes, there has been deplorable behaviour on both sides of this discussion, but as far as I can tell there has only been talk about a legal demand to learn anonymous contributors' identities (which I can only assume is for the purpose of contacting those editors with further legal demands) coming from one side. It appears to me that PC/1 and blocking have dealt with the problem editors, at least for now. Common sense says if he was notable before the recent incidents, he continues to be notable now. Ivanvector (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me. You quoted user:Ashanda's temper-driven false accusation of facts. Do you think I am user:Tipclaysailak and went to the JCorps article to vandalize my own organization? There's no threat. There's an actual lawsuit. Not against wikipedia, against those who have broken the law. (I probably am TemanAri1 and forgot my password, but I wouldn't be able to verify this unless an Admin can send a reset password link to the email in use. All user:TemanAri1 did was upload the Obama photo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TemanAri1 so it's probably me. ) I didn't "get myself into legal trouble". Plenty of baseless lawsuits are brought by people against people who didn't do anything that would "get them into trouble". Neither of those suits have any "trouble". One has a motion to dismiss (as the article states), one was dropped. No trouble. Wikipedia would be nicer if people checked facts before posting accusations and reposting false accusations. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not kidding, sir, that's my interpretation of the dispute. The edits which you reverted as "vandalism" on that article are pretty far from what we would define as vandalism. To me they appear to be good faith attempts by a new editor to improve the encyclopedia. The sourcing wasn't great and they probably would have been tagged, improved or removed from the article, but repeatedly calling the user a "vandal" is a bit over the top. On Wikipedia, vandalism is a long way off from stuff you don't like. Ivanvector (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's kinda close, but the sourcing just isn't there. After the solid JPost feature, it drops into trivial blips and passing coverage of other events and such. As the subject has expressed desire to delete, we default to WP:BIODELETE, no exception. Tarc (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please delete. I'm not ok with the 'deplorable' accusation. If you think JCorps and http://12gurusHealth.com or http://12gurusCharity.com are "trivial" (having been featured on TED as "Best of the Web" and covered in Inc, Fast Company, Chronicle of Philanthropy, etc. since you want "RS") there's nothing I'm going to do that will impress you and I'll be happier with this deleted. No more Wikipedia is exactly how much Wikipedia I want. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "exception" is that WP:BIODELETE (and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE) are for "low-profile individuals" to request deletion of an article about themselves. If we let every person or organization with a beef request that their verifiable and reliably sourced information be scrubbed from the project, we wouldn't have much of an encyclopedia, would we? So, is Mr. Teman a low-profile individual? We define low-profile individuals as "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event", and "[p]ersons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." It seems to me that someone who works as a performer in the entertainment industry automatically doesn't meet this definition, but as other editors have tried to point out Mr. Teman has also been the subject of national and international press coverage for his admirable volunteer work, featured in a TED "best-of" list, appeared in TV commercials and as a regular on a national network, and is recipient of at least one award presented by a national organization. None of this seems to match the description of a person who doesn't seek media attention. Ivanvector (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is a good comedian and will possibly satisfy WP:BIO in the future, but meanwhile "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is not satisfied. The only factoid at JCorps relating to this article is that Teman started JCorps in 2006 as a website—not enough content for another article. Some editors have wanted to use Wikipedia to tell the world about certain claims, but there is nothing encyclopedic in the now deleted content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Thanks user:Johnuniq. The complement is nice, even on here.

* "there is nothing encyclopedic in the now deleted content" . Thanks.

* For the record (since it's the work of many individuals, and not just me): JCorps is an international volunteer network in multiple countries with thousands of members from over 180 colleges, 600 companies, etc. and many volunteer leaders, it's not "a website" (and right now our website is having all sorts of technical issues due to a server change), and it's had ongoing press in the USA, Canada, Israel, etc, has funded by major foundations, recognized by The White House, sponsored by Google, Schusterman Foundation, etc.. You can see that article has been vandalized, too, by the same vandal user:Tipclaysailak : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JCorps&diff=615631388&oldid=589413196 . I don't have confidence in Wikipedia's ability to block vandals and the defamation is extreme. I've undone those edits (with my *real* name -- policy be damned), but that won't stop the attacks. Don't bother "protecting" the page, because that's a joke. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the majority above me, especially Ashanda, this is real close on the WP:GNG hurdle but not quite there and is more of a WP:1EVENT article. Outside of the coverage of that event, this article is extremely promotional and would need a fundamental rewrite in order to be encyclopedic. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please delete. Please delete this so the harassment and defamation stops. AriTeman (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A question I have is if this Wikipedia article has actually created the notability? Not just that the article exists but at the point a few months ago that further details were added including the lawsuit, is the article NOW notable when greater details are included?

I did make a notation on JCorps asking if that organization itself is notable, and presumably the founder is no longer a member since it goes up to age 28. The conferences that are referenced don't have a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipclaysailak (talk • contribs) 00:09, 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 redirect to Vancouver School Board. Jenks24 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Selkirk Annex[edit]

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

NN school that provides education for children grades K-4. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 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 00:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vancouver, British Columbia per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:53, 6 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 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 39 Vancouver per precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InOne[edit]

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

Band founded in 2012. Non-notable, no independent reliable sources found. Relies wholly on self-promotional sites such as Facebook, Twitter etc. Fails under music notability. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 14:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding coverage for this group to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 22:42, 25 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 01:20, 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 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No additional sources in their national language WP either. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as can't find any sources to indicate any WP:notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:21, 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 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kraut Bowl[edit]

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

This is a non-notable HIGH SCHOOL sports rivalry. Fails the specific notability guidelines of WP:SPORTSEVENT, as well as the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. As any editor who is familiar with our notability guidelines is aware, we err on the side of NOT including high school athletes, sports teams, events and rivalries in Wikipedia because they are of extremely limited interest to our readers, and are usually heavily dependent on local and non-independent sources for documentation. DELETE with extreme prejudice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I won't go as far as extreme prejudice as the nom does, but the rivalry is only about 50 years long; most of the high school rivalry articles we do have usually are of century-length. No real place to redirect to, and neither team has seemed to attain state championships in the sport that might solidify this. Nate • (chatter) 21:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer1. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or other criteria. Cbl62 (talk) 18:51, 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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Horse, Moon Horse[edit]

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

Seems like a prolific and notable author, but I can't find any references for this title to make me believe it meets WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found multiple reviews/notable mentions, including ^[1] and ^[2]. This book passes WP:BKCRIT. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 20 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 01:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a little slow going because of how long it's taking due to the time period, but I'm finding quite a bit to show that this book would pass notability guidelines. It seems to have been one of her more popular books, to be certain. ([26], [27], [28], [29]) A lot of what I'm finding shows that the book was used as an example of writing and language in children's fiction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 29 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 19:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—The google scholar hits look like good leads, as do the works that cite the book. On balance, I think there's enough here that notability is more likely than not. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:48, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Mainen[edit]

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

I tagged this for a speedy, but it was contested by another editor, who also removed the tag for multiple problems (notability and advertising). He fails the prof test, referenced only to affiliated sources. Also highly promotional in tone, lots of spamlinks, spam text "watch the video... read the full story... This work touches on philosophical issues surrounding causality, free will, knowledge and belief...." Basically just another researcher promoting his work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tried to remove the spam text. I think he may pass WP:PROF. See http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ivDH8SoAAAAJ&hl=en He seems to have lots of citations. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sometimes an autobiographical article can start out spammy, but can be improved by the attention of experienced editors. I added some references.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial citations [30] pass WP:Prof#C1 easily. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. On balance, seems to scrape over the scholarly notability threshold, though not by as much as the article's creator would wish! We should get rid of the TED talk nonsense though - that's just (self-)publicity. RomanSpa (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep. Thank you for your feedback. This is the first wikipedia page we ever made and we were not well aware of the guidelines. We did not create it for promotional purposes. We believe the content is valid. We would like to thank you for the edits. As suggested, we also removed the reference to the Ted Talk. Please let us know if any further edits are needed. If you find the page valid, please remove the 'for deletion' tag. Thank you. Zacharymainen (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 but admonish the article creator to focus on creating content here for which there is less of a conflict of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abid Mahi[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No indications that this filmmaker has made an significant impact or received any significant attention for his films. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 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 redirect to 1951 24 Hours of Le Mans. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Larivière[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Having checked for sources, I believe the subject fails WP:GNG. All references seem to be about the subject's death. Article was created by an editor with a preoccupation with decapitation and there is no apparent information available beyond this aspect. Possible merge to 1951 24 Hours of Le Mans. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested (selectively merging a couple of lines, perhaps). I couldn't find anything by way of substantive coverage in reliable sources. Bizarrely, there's actually quite a bit about his vehicle which was recovered and repaired. The floor was drilled (to allow the blood to be washed out of the car) and it was later sold to Phil Hill. This book includes a few details but not much more on the subject himself. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source is a brief mention in a local British paper. Probably other sources exist, but it's a clear case of WP:BLP1E. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:25, 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 merge to Stadion Maksimir. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stadion Kajzerica[edit]

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

Proposed stadium. Although the design was adopted in 2008 and there was some talk about possible construction project starting in 2010 and again in 2011, it never took off the ground and the idea to build it was ultimately abandoned in 2012. Timbouctou (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's delete it. No stadium, no article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with/to Stadion Maksimir, the stadium it was intended to replace; it's worth having a section about this stadium in that article, but it certainly does not justify a separate article. Giant Snowman 11:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - per GS, no need for a separate article now the project has been abandoned. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. While the stadium might still be built as proposed, I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. GregorB (talk) 12:01, 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. Deor (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwant Dwivedi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. As per the last AFD, there are still no sources that show he was ever actually appointed as a consul, only ones that show a designate status. There are no significant new sources since that time, around 2008-2010, and he seems no longer to hold any form of diplomatic role. While there is news coverage about him, it is mostly minor stuff, as was noted at the last AfD. Sitush (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even as Consul would be a junior diplomatic function. Also looks like the cited news regard a one-time event. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - per nom. Evident from here that he never held any diplomatic title. NQ talk 01:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. no notable achievements, ambassabador not inherently notable, consul general even less so. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've just found this, which may be the same guy and shows him as Hon Consul for the Solomon Islands, rather than Fiji as has been claimed for years. However, given the source concerning the allegation of fraud, I'd rather see a truly official source. There is this but the security certificate is dodgy, with Chrome reporting "You attempted to reach owncloud.jeffwfranzke.tk, but the server presented a certificate issued by an entity that is not trusted". - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the coverage or the positions are sufficient to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything indicating inherent notability, nor do I see sourced notability. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a difficult nomination, because there are dozens of news stories by different news organizations about Dwivedi or that quote him substantially. However, the questions raised about Dwivedi's background/positions don't seem adequately addressed, and neither the government nor news organizations in Fiji seem like truly reliable sources. If sources like The Fiji Times, Fiji Sun, Fiji Broadcasting Corp, Fiji Live, Fiji Daily Post, or Radio Fiji could be considered reliable, I think the amount of coverage he's attracted would easily meet WP:GNG, but they just don't seem to take fact-checking seriously. In a 1999 libel suit against The Fiji Daily Post, in which Dwivedi was named as a defendant, the defendants didn't even show up. (Dwiveldi left the Daily Post to become editor of Prabhaat shortly before the May 2000 hearing). In 2007, The Fiji Sun ran an article both asserting that Dwivedi was the Fiji Consulate to Vancouver, while stating that Dwivedi denied that he was the Fiji Consulate, amidst complaints of fraud by Dwivedi for which they couldn't contact him for a response; later, the Sun continued to describe Dwivedi using a number of official-sounding titles to official-sounding organizations. In a 2011 letter to the editor published in The Fiji Times, a reader questioned the Times' description of Dwivedi as a former senior employee of the Fiji embassy in Canada, saying that there was no such embassy; the Times published the letter but made no response to it, and continued referring to Dwivedi with various official-sounding titles. The claims of Dwivedi as the Solomon Islands head of consular post in Canada (since last year's earthquake in the S.I.) seem similarly questionable, with the main indicator being a Consulate General of Solomon Islands to Canada website, but it's not clear that this is an official website; it may be a website Dwivedi convinced some students to make for free, for an organization and title he just invented. I'm not sure at what point we should simply trust these sorts of news organizations as having verified these things with the Fiji and Solomon Islands governments. Agyle (talk) 03:58, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Wetherspoon[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Retired MMA fighter with only 1 top tier fight (a loss). Does not meet WP:NMMA. A second tier title is not enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:NMMA because he lacks top tier fights and a second tier championship doesn't make him notable.Mdtemp (talk) 16:23, 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 Adithya Srinivasan. Jenks24 (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gham e Duniya[edit]

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

The references mostly seem to talk about the artist and only mention the song in passing, and notability is not inherited. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 20 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 00:35, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adithya Srinivasan. WP:NSONG is not met as the song does not appear to have charted or won an award, nor been covered by notable artists. Neither does it meet WP:GNG. Per NSONG, therefore, the song should be redirected to, in this case, the artist. This is the same situation as for his other single Tu Hi Dilruba. BethNaught (talk) 15:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Hoffman[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced biography, with no in-depth WP:SECONDARY sources to support it. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable voice actor, sucky article, should be reduced to stub. BTVA can be used to expand on references. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are referring to this source when you say BTVA. To me, it looks like BTVA has almost no coverage of Hoffman, so it does not establish notability. It says she exists, that she has performed in some productions. What we're trying to do is find WP:SECONDARY sources that give in-depth coverage. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be well sourced and is WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list the secondary sources which you have determined to satisfy WP:GNG? Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it was the nominator's job to do WP:BEFORE, not mine. Please check the current secondary source refs in the article which could all have been found if WP:BEFORE had been done. Given that you also nominated Johnny Yong Bosch, it is extremely obvious you did not even attempt WP:BEFORE. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the BEFORE requirement was fulfilled, contrary to your assertion. If you continue to base your 'keep' vote on my notional misbehavior then it will not carry any weight. A 'keep' vote should specify some facts that establish notability. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My keep was based on the 34 references which the article has. At least some of them actually discuss her performance as a voice actor. Somebody else did the work required by WP:BEFORE prior to my keep which is why I said it was well sourced. I would have thought that was obvious. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:02, 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 00:49, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, clearly a hard-working voice actor, worked with lots of top people. Perusing the numerous "references" that are currently in the article, I did not find ones that I thought were reliable, detached, which covered the subject in-depth. I searched google for 10 SERP pages on "web" setting (not news) did not find much. What there are, at present, is lots of mentions in the "references", but I am not sure that adds up to meet the GNG standard. So, essentially, the article is an overworked resume or CV, not a real encyclopedic article. I may change my vote if the non-references are removed and suitable ones found (maybe past the 10 SERP pages?) but for now, unfortunately, I vote weak delete as per Binksternet.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the process you describe corresponds well with the process I undertook, except that I also looked for Google News and Google Books results, and I searched under the screen credit names Ruby Marlowe, Serena Kolb and Tessa Ariel. I agree that the article as we see it today is an extended list of appearances, lacking an in-depth biographical piece. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the articles that cover her in detail are available online. The news review of her theatre work and the MSU Alumni ones point to biographical articles. The LA Times article covers that she worked as a car model/narrator and leads to the Time Trackers movie. Several of the Ah My Goddess movie reviews describe her performance as the title character Belldandy in the film. If that needs to be detailed better than I will add that to the bio. Many of the other credits prove existence and participation as starring characters in notable anime shows. The disadvantage she has compared to other voice actors is that she doesn't attend anime conventions for that cult personality popularity, although she does attend voiceover seminars as a panelist. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The anime reviews, which do come from reliable sources, do describe their critiques of Hoffman's dubbing performance in the series. Please do not assume everything is just SERP fishing; she does have significant voice and directing roles in notable anime titles, and those are more notable than most of her live-action work like her connections with Raimi / Becker. -AngusWOOF (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-cited, meets WP:ENTERTAINER, and Hoffman has done significant acting and directing roles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER with major roles done and the sources to show for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - AngusWoof has a done a great job in filling this article out recently. Rarely for an voice actor involved in anime, the article goes beyond a simple cast list and makes use of a range of sources both inside, and outside of the one specific field she is associated with. While the nomination of the page may have made sense at the time the, current state of the page clearly doesn't suffer from the issues listed in the nomination.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College of Commercial Arbitrators[edit]

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

After discussion with the article creator on IRC (see disclosure on article talk page). Subject is not notable, as by the author's own statement it has never received any independent coverage. As a professional body that functions as a setter of 'best practices' in the field of commercial arbitration, subject is more appropriately covered with a brief mention in the appropriate section of Arbitration in the United States, and the editor in question has agreed to pursue this course. Revent (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 20 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 00:52, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no real third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 7001–8000. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(7646) 1989 KE[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTROP. TheQ Tester (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is NASTROP? (Your link doesn't work.) -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's supposed to be WP:NASTRO, an easy typo to make -- "P" is next to "O" on a QWERTY keyboard. Ashanda (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 7001–8000 per WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, no significant coverage in studies or the press, not in any catalogue of note, and not discovered before 1850. No other significantly notable properties either. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:48, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mangal Singh Champia[edit]

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

No sense in having separate article for an archer; Can't stand alone as an individual approach; should be deleted or merged with appropriate sport event Drsharan (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" olympic participant Drsharan (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 15:22, 6 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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:37, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthresh Lalit Lakra[edit]

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

Cannot stand alone as an article; should be merged with boxing events rather than having individual page Drsharan (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" olympic participant Drsharan (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 15:02, 6 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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:19, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diwakar Prasad[edit]

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

Can't stand alone as an individual article because of events i.e. boxing; should be merged with articles of particular boxing event rather than having separate article Drsharan (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" olympic participant Drsharan (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 14:42, 6 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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of England international footballers[edit]

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

List of lists. Doesn't add anything to the project Mblumber (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is not a valid reason for deletion. See [[31]] Btljs (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no content. Might as well be a disambiguation page.Staglit (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a valid disambiguation page. GiantSnowman 18:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- More of a WP:SETINDEX. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:LISTPURP as a functional navigational aid to various list articles about the topic. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful setindex. Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above a useful navigation tool. Mblumber might wish to have a look at List of lists of lists! Fenix down (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a useful navigation tool, per the above. BethNaught (talk) 07:53, 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 speedy keep: the nomination was withdrawn and no other users endorsed deletion. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kindo[edit]

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

Can't stand alone as an individual article. Should be merged with hockey events of respective competition or else should be deleted Drsharan (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" olympic participant Drsharan (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 14:31, 6 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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSPORTS. The subject competed in the 1972 Summer Olympics and all Olympic competitors are notable. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. Per the article, Kindo "represented India in 1972 Summer Olympics...". NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 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 merge to Disney Junior. Even ignoring the rampant confirmed sockpuppetry and dubious contributions from IPs, there is still a clear consensus to merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Junior (international)[edit]

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

Wholly un-encyclopaedic and wholly unreferenced. This provides no content, just an endless list of when a name change occurred in multiple conries across the world with a interminable list of own web-sites - one for each country. Maybe something could be salvaged into a single paragraph, but at present it totally fails any test for notability Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is notable channels, The article needs improving and sourcing alot tho but that can easily be fixed. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a single channel, but your point it out as such that it amounts to understanding that it is one concept. Spshu (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: - I meant "Channels", Not sure why I worded it as a single channel but thanks for spotting the error.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Disney Junior - Most of what's on this article can easily be merged & perhaps put as a table, It's simply easier to have everyone thing in one place as opposed to everything everywhere!, –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely needs more reduction, but is salvageable; this article is pretty much the best solution, rather than having 20 different little articles describing each DJ network that are pretty much 'this channel offers the network's programming without any local deviation', along with 20 'fantasy TV vandal' targets. Nate • (chatter) 21:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete easily incorporated into Disney Junior as a table. Notability is with the US and/or general concept of Disney Jr. Spshu (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - I think it could be added into Disney Junior by a table. Spend Time Wisely... (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)~~ stuck as confirmed sock.[reply]
Keep or Merge. It is a notable channel, yet it can probably be fit into the already-existing Disney Junior page somehow. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 13:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Disney Junior as a table. Most of these international articles are duplicates of the main article. Most Disney Junior channels air similar programmes. 66.87.82.53 (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)— 66.87.82.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 66.87.82.53 (UTC).[reply]
Merge because it can be added like a table. 176.12.107.140 (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)— 176.12.107.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge - It would be less complicated. 82.152.187.189 (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)— 82.152.187.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 82.152.187.189 (UTC).[reply]
Merge HJKPO (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)— HJKPO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. stuck as confirmed sock.[reply]
Delete or Merge YBFTB (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)— YBFTB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. stuck as confirmed sock.[reply]

The above five votes should be disqualified, as all have the signs of socking by Finealt, a user who has been blocked because of their MO of reducing international television network coverage by force. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Disney Junior is small enough to handle this information. — Wylie pedia 17:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with above merge points. Abroham1024 (talk) 18:23, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lova Gast[edit]

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

Non notable actress only starring in 1 short film, Also Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, also repeated recreation. Hopefully this AfD will stop that. Benboy00 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guideline for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 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 delete. Deor (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Belly Diet[edit]

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

Just another diet book. Completely unreferenced, and fails WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mikeblas said it all. Non-notable as a book. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would probably be worth re-writing as an article about the diet in general rather than the specific book, as I am finding coverage for the diet as a whole at places such as Web MD and US News. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, according to http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/2009-04-26/hardcover-advice/list.html it did spend 21 weeks on the NYT best seller list. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:03, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NBOOK, best-selling is not a status that status that confers notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the general consensus here is that being a bestseller does not confer automatic notability, because the system can be gamed. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Fukuzawa[edit]

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

This has smelled bad since I first saw it but I only recently got back to it. Earlier versions had her being the daughter of a film director and very famous actress [32], as well as marrying a famous actor--all of which were based on unreliable sources (the marriage to Sakaguchi is called a hoax on the Japanese Wikipedia ja:坂口拓). I cut those BLP violations, but it still has her listed as executive producer for major Hollywood films (even though previous versions only have her being born in 1988). IMDb lists those credits too, but IMDb is not a reliable source. I checked the credits of the actual films for both Escape Plan and Ghost Rider and cannot find her name. Other sources are also not reliable. Eliminate those credits, and all we have is a minor actress with little in terms of RS who may have someone somewhere claiming things of her that may not be real. Her Japanese Wikipedia article was deleted for lack of notability [33]. Michitaro (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on corresponding deletion in JP Wikipedia. Bensci54 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notbale Japanese actress and film producer. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somewhat of a weak delete, although I found several sources here, possibly here, here, a French source, plus the article in the Tokyo Times, generally, somewhat agree with nom, does not add up to GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning these, some of which I had seen. I had trouble connecting to the Crunchyroll piece, but the rest only mention her name and do not constitute significant sources per WP:GNG. The Tokyo Times article is likely a hoax, as mentioned in the nomination. Michitaro (talk) 11:21, 8 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 List_of_Animorphs_books#Companion_books. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Passage (Alternamorphs)[edit]

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

Non-notable book, failing WP:BOOKS. Only given reference is dead link. Appears to be one novel in scarcely-notable pulp-sci-fi series. Mikeblas (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication book is notable. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Animorphs_books#Companion_books. I can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable outside of the series as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:40, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. Jenks24 (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PPSI[edit]

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

This topic seems un-notable. Google search returns almost no hits [34]. On the other hand, the article is tagged as "Indonesia-related stub" with no apparent reason. Indonesia is not mentioned in the article. If the topic is really Indonesian, maybe there are sources in Bahasa Indonesia, but I don't know the Indonesian name of this concept, so I can't search the net. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only source is a dead link, but the title quoted for it, "Format Kurikulum dan Strategi Pembelajaran", in indeed Bahasa Indonesia - Google translates it as "Format of Curriculum and Learning Strategy". But as it stands, there's no context and no actual sources to show notability - and without context and sources, I don't really see how we can keep it. However, it's new, and I'd like to see the article's creator given some time to possibly expand it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 29 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 13:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McComish[edit]

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

This page is absolutely non-notable. The text is not sufficient to cover the article and the only reference cited gives a 404 error.

An user argues that the page is notable simply because this person is a professional player. Applying this criteria, Wikipedia should have articles for every professional player in the world (professional can be understood as paid player or expert).

The text does not tell the reader why this player should have an article (why he is notable to Wikipedia). That "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" does not mean that can be put whatever thing in it.

I consider this article should be deleted, and therefore, I ask the community to evaluate the existence of it. Zerabat (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I am the user mentioned above. I did not argue that he is notable simply because McCormish is a professional player. I declined speedy deletion (twice) because being a professional player is a claim to significance and since WP:A7 is about a claim to significance it does not meet the speedy deletion criterion. GB fan 20:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep, established player for top-level team. I've added a cite. Really this should not be here, a very lazy nomination: certaily the existing link is dead in that it leads to to a 404 on the club page: searching this would have found something, as wouls a google using "Mike McComish rugby". TheLongTone (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand professional athletes are notable. Busy Moose (talk) 16:42, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - a player for a popular sport's national side is noteworthy in my opinion. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:55, 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 00:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haack god's play[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a future film, created by the production company. Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 13:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — LeoFrank ^Talk 13:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — LeoFrank ^Talk 13:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM and it's also WP:TOOSOON to include. — LeoFrank ^Talk 13:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on poor results from Google search and the unsourced article this is at best WP:TOOSOON so delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersey92 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 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 merge to She's Dating the Gangster (film). Final title should be She's Dating the Gangster since the article will then be about both book and film and disambiguation will be unnecessary SpinningSpark 10:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's Dating the Gangster[edit]

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

I've tried again and again to find reliable non-trivial sources about this book, but I just can't. All the sources are about the film adaptation, which has an article already which includes all the information listed in the book's article, so it's practically a completed merge. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 11:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the merge is already consumed, simply Redirect the title to the film article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge :The book is published and independent review can be found at Goodreads (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10886468-she-s-dating-the-gangster) and so meets notability criteria WP:BKCRIT, as it has been source of a significant motion picture. So in general article is not worthy of deletion in that sense, atleast according Wikipedia itself. But in my view point article is stub and its film has seperate article so there is no need of so short an article for the book. So my view is that page be merged with the film article with general name She's Dating the Gangster (film and novel). Sometimes Wikipedia Policies do not serve the purpose of improving the encyclopeida. It is my request to admins that kindly override the policies in such cases.--Ubed junejo (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Ubed junejo, those are user-posted reviews on a website where I believe the books are also listed by users. Therefore it isn't a reliable source, and I'm pretty sure it's also classified as trivial. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 13:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you're right about the motion picture (if the film is considered significant...) -- Pingumeister^(talk) 13:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pingumeister the WP:NBOOK states that: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

. . . . 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. And the book is source of film, as you too have said that, so the topic is notable in that sense. But I also believe that this article should be deleted for reasins mentioned above.--Ubed junejo (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 15:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to the film article. The film is marginally notable, but the book is not. The few reliable sources merely mention the book while discussing the film. The book fails to meet any of the five criteria of WP:BKCRIT. Although the book is the basis of a film, the film is not significant. In fact, the film has not even been released. Significance would require significant box office receipts or significant critical reviews by notable critics.- Mr X 12:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with She's Dating the Gangster (film), then move that article to this title - The book has no independent notability (strangely, despite apparently being popular, before the film adaptation was announced, I had never heard of the book). However, the film is notable. Since there's not enough information on the book, it's possible that the article on the film be moved to this title, and any book info be merged. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to She's Dating the Gangster (film). I think it's not exactly notable but it is the source material of a notable film. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:08, 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. keep commentators doesn't provide any sources outside passing mentions on how he meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC, which is a valid policy based rationale most (a few were not policy based) of the delete commentators had. Willing to userfy per request. Secret ^account 19:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC) I somehow missed the in depth New York Times source while reading the discussion which made most of the delete discussion moot, really confusing AFD all around but apparently WP:GNG is met (if WP:MUSIC isn't) no consensus Secret ^account 00:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Lean[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No charting song or album. There is some coverage in reliable sources, but most of it is trivial, such as mentions in lists of artists, news about songs released etc. It has previously been speedy deleted twice under A7 for "No explanation of significance". 2Flows (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- I'm really new to the Wikipedia thing. I tried best I could to make it fit within the guidelines. I feel it completes WP:NMUSIC because of "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition." for his nomination in P3 Guld. I feel like he could also potentially be suitable for "7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." but I don't think there is any way that I can support that with citations. I also think the some of the Vice Noisey articles about him classify as non-trivial. There's not alot of discussion about his music, only really his cultural significance (like the article about bucket hats http://noisey.vice.com/en_se/blog/yung-lean-is-going-to-do-bucket-hats-like-mac-miller-did-the-snapback-interview-2014 ); but he's the sort of artist who nobody's really going to write non-trivially about anyway -- like Lil B or many of the other cloudrap artists like him.

I don't know if http://noisey.vice.com/blog/yung-lean-new-york-city-concert-webster-hall suffices for "7. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country."

Is any of that useful anyhow? Jackcrawf3 (Jackcrawf3) 9:48, 30 June 2014 (AEST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is if, as you said, "nobody's really going to write non-trivially about" him, then he is likely not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. 2Flows (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG, e.g [35][36][37][38][39] 78.19.84.172 (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links you provided have significant coverage on the subject. Two mixtape reviews, both part of lists of mixtapes; a song review, which barely mentions him; a 3-page article on a general topic, which only mentions him in the last 2 paragraphs. The one article which is actually about him (2), is a blog post by a guest blogger, as can be seen from the source, so it cannot be considered reliable. 2Flows (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. A mixtape review such as [40] is clearly significant coverage, even if it were part of a "list". "A blog post by a guest blogger" does not rule something out as a RS (see WP:UGC grafs 2 & 3) even if that was an accurate characterisation of [41] —the italicised last line, as is common, is an author bio. "Brandon Soderberg is a rap blogger and cultural critic whose words often appear in SPIN." See Spin. The piece that "barely mentions" him has 200+ words on him. Etc. 78.18.13.94 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which criterion of NMUSIC is met? LibStar (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum guidelines 7-9-10-12.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

regarding #9, which major award has he won or placed? being nominated is not the same as placing. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also #10, how does he meet "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album" LibStar (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also there is nothing in the article to suggest #12 is met either. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search found further coverage. Satisfies general and subject-specific notability guidelines. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please list the extra sources you found. LibStar (talk) 2 2:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for finding. I don't think cmj.com is a reliable source, its website says "CMJ Access is an integrated marketing agency specializing in providing its clients unparalleled access to the college and young adult demographic and emerging music world" , so there appears to be some connection in what they feature and their "clients". one of your articles is a review by "C Monster" that is hardly reliable. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CMJ is a reliable source. The fact that the parent company has a branch that carries out marketing doesn't change that. And the fact that someone writes under a pseudonym for Tiny Mix Tapes does not make it an unreliable source. --Michig (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I touched upon this already in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throw That Boy Pussy, but I'm going to reiterate that Wikipedia's established notability guidelines for musical artists have become somewhat out of date as the music industry itself is transforming. I definitely think a reconsideration of the music notability guidelines is long overdue as we approach an era in entertainment where an artist's popularity can no longer be measured by the traditional means of billboard chart positions. As for Yung Lean himself, I think the references provided by other users on this page clearly establish notability. felt _friend 02:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

an established notability guideline which has numerous subcriteria being "out of date" is not a claim for keeping. There are other more generic guidelines like WP:GNG and BIO which also apply. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the basis of my rationale for keeping, just a statement I wanted to put out since WP:NMUSIC gets thrown around a lot in these kind of AfDs and I feel it to be extremely out of date. As for Yung Lean himself, I would agree that, as per the sources provided by LibStar and others, he indeed passes the notability criteria of GNG and BIO, but not NMUSIC. felt _friend 15:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not provided any sources. LibStar (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page for a non-notable milquetoast suburban rapper wannabe. On a more subjective note, his latest track sounds like somebody cupped a warm fart and wafted it at a theremin. - incog (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD result is not based on your personal opinion about a certain person (which are frankly quite rude), but on guidelines. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC, I don't see him meeting any criterion, he was nominated for an award but did not place which is what the criterion requires. a number of sources provided in the article are not reliable eg blogs. also seems to another youtube short lived star, and that's not a claim for a WP article. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noisey isn't unreliable. He also had an article and interview in i-D Magazine, which again is not an unreliable source. Both of these publications are owned by VICE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vykex (talk • contribs) 09:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails musician notability criteria. Existing references are either passing mentions or non-reliable. No other significant coverage found in reliable independent sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, etc... Femmina (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shitty virally marketed memerap. User:Antz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.72.32 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been substantially improved and sourced since the above !votes were added. --Michig (talk) 09:36, 6 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 10:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This topic is significantly notable. Wikipedia contains article on numerous topics far less important and notable than this one.--Ubed junejo (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly passing both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, however, is. --Michig (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ubed did not cite these guidelines. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO #1. 114.164.127.244 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 114.164.127.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. The artists clearly meets the general notability guide and WP:NMUSIC through independent coverage in reliable sources, as has been demonstrated above. — sparklism ^hey! 12:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because is a savior of culture. Femmina (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't addressed how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per LibStar, Philg88, and 2Flows. --Neøn (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The New York Times just came out with an article about him: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/arts/music/yung-lean-in-new-york-a-rapper-evolves.html Talu42 (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. XXL have also published a review of his NYC show (http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2014/07/yung-lean-surprises-nyc-live-review/]), but let's face it, it has been obvious for a long time that notability isn't a problem here. Take away the WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes and the 'no coverage' argument that has been disproven and there wasn't even a need to relist it (a decision that should have been taken by an uninvolved editor in any case). --Michig (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per extensive coverage by the media as seen on the article. I doesn't seem to fail WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will add sources for these claims at a later date (right now I don't have time)... Yung Lean is actually signed to Sony. Surely a record deal must carry some sort of weight? He is also sponsored by major commercial companies such as Nike and Arizona Beverages USA. Vykex (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Vykex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete as non notable artist. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he non notable? Most of the delete !votes here states no guideline opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1; I agree with Michig's assessment of the sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Libstar and Philg88 --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:34, 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 'Rename/refocus'. While there are some misstatements of policy here, there is a consensus that the primary content here has a notable basis, and that a refocus to an article on the scandal is warranted. S. Marshall is correct that the correct policy codification of that is WP:BIO1E. As no specific proposal has been made for a new title, I will appoint a placeholder with the understanding that further discussion at the talk page to determine the best name for the refocused article. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Willingham[edit]

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

Possible WP:BLP1E, because Willingham is notably only for her extensive criticisms (possibly science by press conference) about college athletics.

Also fails WP:ACADEMIC, since her Drake Group award can't really be considered "highly prestigious" per criteria #2. No evidence of #1 that Willingham's research "has made significant impact in [her] scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources," or any of the other notability criteria. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name and focus of article - I do not think Willingham herself is notable. So an article about her specifically I vote to delete. However, I think the scandal is definitely notable and I would like to see it on wikipedia. Given the article on Willingham is only about her part in the scandal, I think we can just change the name and do a few minor edits and we can keep it. That is my suggestion: change this into an article about the scandal. It has gotten extensive press, it's interesting. The whole "fake classes" thing is something I'd click on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Bali88. There is almost no detail here about this individual, reading the article one learns about the scandal not her. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Move to an article about the scandal, which I was surprised to see doesn't exist yet (at least not that I see). WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here, but given the continued coverage of the story, the scandal would seem to pass WP:EVENT. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually there is an article about the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill football scandal, but I wonder if Willingham's comments (and those by guys like Rashad McCants) warrent a "UNC basketball scandal/controversy" article? (Edit) And MW has made claims about UNC football players. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I understand, that's not the same scandal, but I suppose could be seen as an extension thereof. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a scandal, there is hot air. This was a passing claim that was latched onto by people who wanted to believe it, but at best in the long run merits mention in an article like Allegations of academic failure by college athletes, not an independent article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But a scandal isn't defined by whether or not you believe it -- just the extant sources (and duration of coverage and all that). Even if it's false, if it receives significant coverage in reliable sources, it's ok by Wikipedia standards. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. It doesn't matter if the claims ultimately hold water. They are getting a huge amount of press and have impacted the university in a big way. That is notability. The satanic ritual child sex abuse craze a couple decades ago was nothing but a bunch of hot air but it was a cultural phenomenon that impacted a lot of people. Bali88 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In light of two new developments, it's clear this is not "hot air" and Willingham is more notable than ever -- NCAA is reopening the investigation into UNC, and Willingham is now filing a civil lawsuit. Press from last 24 hours below. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- National media - NY Times - N.C.A.A. Is Reopening Inquiry Into Academic Violations at North Carolina
- Sports media - ESPN - NCAA again investigating UNC
- Local media - News and Observer - NCAA reopens investigation of academic misconduct at UNC
- Lawsuit - News and Observer - Willingham, whistleblower in UNC academic case, says she has sued the school

Her role in this is definitely significant, but personally, since she's only notable for this one thing, I think a prominent mention of Willingham in an article about the UNC fake classes scandal would be a better fit. The scandal is basically the entire thing and would take up the entire article, so it makes more sense to have her name redirect to an article about the scandal itself.Bali88 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could see it go either way, but I think people throw around WP:BLP1E and hone in on "one event" without really understanding the policy. To fall under BLP1E and justify not having an article about the individual, each of the three conditions must be met according to the policy. In this case, conditions 2 and 3 are not met. She is not low-profile (she's a named an award winner and filing a civil lawsuit) and her role is substantial and well-documented. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. I'm not saying she fails notability on that basis, she passes gng if you ask me. I just think it would be a better article if we focus on the scandal and her role in it than on her personally. I know my own interests aren't a good justification, but I can see myself being interested in the scandal and her role in it but not so much the details of who she's married to, where she went to college, etc. I assume others are like me. Bali88 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This subject has received extensive national media coverage for multiple reasons now as shown by all the links previously posted. I agree too. --Freidrichright (talk) 16:33, 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, Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing confusion about BLP1E on Wikipedia. For some reason, editors are under the impression that it applies to everyone who's only notable for one event. In fact that's not so: as it says plainly under WP:BLP1E, it applies only to low-profile individuals, which Mary Willingham clearly is not. The guideline (not policy) that does apply to Mary Willingham is WP:BIO1E. If we apply what BIO1E actually says, then you end up with the recommendation Bali88 and others have already supplied: to retitle and repurpose the article, setting up Mary Willingham as a redirect because (1) it's a likely search term for that material and (2) it maintains the history for copyright attribution purposes. This also complies with WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, in that there's a reasonable alternative to deletion and we always prefer reasonable alternatives where possible.—S Marshall T/C 12:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for @S Marshall:. Too often, people never make it past the shortcut title like BLP1E or NOTNEWS. If you actually read the policies/guidelines, they don't actually match the reasoning of those using them. -- Fuzheado | Talk

Keep as per @Freidrichright:. Notable subject, meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:33, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World council for scouts movement[edit]

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

Literally no evidence able to be found for this "World Council" which also appears to be solely India based. Even being pro-independent Scouting I cannot support the inclusion of this organisation, which has no evidence of existing outside of Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional This page has been flagged as a copyvio, so may be a candidate for speedy deletion rather than AfD. DiverScout (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Not notable organization. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is very similar to World council for scout movement, which was deleted as a copyvio. I have not had a chance to compare them in detail, but it seems likely that speedy deletion is appropriate. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:48, 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 00:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Bowes[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer (WP:NBOX). This was a self entry. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiography about a boxer who doesn't come close to meeting WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.NN. Read the article and the only ref. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elvin Juarez[edit]

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

Deprodded BLP on an American YouTube personality with his Youtube channel as the only "reference"; currently it has under 2000 views in total. Fails WP:BIO. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of any notability.TheLongTone (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:ENT and WP:NOTABILITY. No WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing to the videos that are alleged to have brought him notice is primary sourcing and will not work for notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the others have pointed out, no RS coverage, fails GNG. If every youtube channel with 2000+ views had a page.....Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:30, 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 Withdrawn. Article is a recreation, c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condiment King and will be tagged with G4. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Condiment king[edit]

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

Deprodded stub on a non-notable fictional character, fails WP:NFICT. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recreation, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condiment King.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, T. Anthony. --Sam Sailor ^Sing 12:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete per above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:53, 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 00:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pack rat (comics)[edit]

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

Deprodded stub on a non-notable fictional character, fails WP:NFICT Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of Batman: The Animated Series episodes.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only in one episode of BTAS. — Wylie pedia 17:05, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khulafa of Pir Fazal Ali Qureshi[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. Laun chba ller 08:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Though Pir Fazal Ali himself may be notable but it is unncessary to have an article for his disciple names. --Ubed junejo (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability for the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indore Sanwer railway station[edit]

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

No such railway station exists. Sawer or "Sanwer" is a town and an assembly constituency within Indore district and no railway line near this place. See 1, 2, 3. Also the station code, SWR, in that page belongs to Sonua railway station in Sonua, Jharkhand under the administration of Chakradharpur railway division of South Eastern Railway zone. A station code is 2–4 letter code used by Indian Railways to identify an station, to avoid confusion when two stations having similar names. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 07:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm convinced this is a nonexistent station. The nearest station appears to be Ajnod Station which appears about 11km away.--Oakshade (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apparently fails WP:V. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 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 redirect to Rathfarnham. Jenks24 (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divine word 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) 05:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rathfarnham per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoil Ide, Clondalkin[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) 05:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a rare exception, the nominator gets my vote. I've already boldly deleted the non notable people mentioned in the article leaving just an extremely short stub that doesn't even provide enough background to justify a redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kudpung - Not worth bothering redirecting a local small non notable school. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:30, 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-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canvas (company)[edit]

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

pro motional articles on non-notable company. The references are either mentions of the product in connection with other products or applications, or from the company's own site. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, considering I moved the article from AfC based on the coverage in multiple news sources, for example those [49][50][51] (and this one [52] behind a pay wall) currently cited in the article which DGG seems to have failed to look at. I've no great love of the subject or particularly care if the article goes, but promotional wording is a clean-up (not a deletion) issue. Meets the bare minimum of WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Sionk - the coverage in sources seems to be independent and just enough to meet WP:GNG. A google search for "canvas application store" throws up a few hits. It doesn't help though, that Facebook also appear to have a games API also called Canvas - I assume that's nothing to do with these guys? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Washington Post coverage certainly does not qualify as "mere mentions" and IMO is sufficient to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:46, 8 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 as cites, towns, villages are all considered notable. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Wahan[edit]

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

Reason Ubed junejo (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC) This article is about a small village in Sindh, Pakistan. Though it is a real village but in my opinion is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Though WP:GEOLAND states that Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history but WP:NRVE states that The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition and WP:NOTEWORTHY states that Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. WP:NTEMP states A topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events. The village is not mentioned in credible and significant source, is not a historical place and can not be even found on a map. Therefore I think in good faith that Wikipedia should be free from such unimportant and insignificant topics and thus I believe that this article should be deleted. There are several other such articles on villages of same region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubed junejo (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 6 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 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Maps would disagree that it's not on the map. Village exists as a good-sized settlement. Nate • (chatter) 03:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Among the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that we incorporate the features of a gazetteer into the encyclopedia, and this article is entirely appropriate. There is a general consensus that we should have articles about every city, town, village and hamlet on Earth. Please note that a statement of principles like the Five Pillars is given weight comparable to a guideline like WP:GNG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 04:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Populated towns, even very minor ones, are generally considered to be notable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:35, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. Bbb23 (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Murray[edit]

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

Page includes minimal / no references as to why either the subject or the related foundation is notable. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Non-notable high school athlete who died under sad circumstances. Yes, the subject did get coverage in the immediate aftermath of his death in the New York area newspapers, but this would seem to be exactly the type of subject covered and excluded by guidelines for persons who are known for a single event per WP:BIO1E. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There has been a speedy A7 added to the article also. Altho there are no references on the article, they do exist, so I doubt A7 is appropriate. Agree with the WP:BLP1E argument above and also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The sole thing this fella is noted for is dying. It's tragic, but not notable. John from Idegon (talk) 04:45, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas P. Cadmus[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Subject had an unremarkable military career and was National Commander of the American Legion for 12 months in 2004/5. Though he evidently has written for some news outlets and occasionally gets quoted on issues, I can't see any significant news coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:15, 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 Vancouver School Board--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garibaldi Annex[edit]

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

NN school that provides education for children grades K-4. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vancouver School Board per long-established practice described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: some coverage in local media, but insufficient to make the school notable. Therefore redirect to Vancouver School Board per Cullen328. BethNaught (talk) 08:00, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield to Hull Line[edit]

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

Malformed article. Not a railway line in the conventional sense eg Settle-Carlisle Line. No evidence in literature (railway/historical/web search) found for the topic. Some train services do run from Hull to Sheffield - this is not a reason to create an article - that subject is already covered in List of Northern Rail routes number 30

Summary, fails WP:VERIFY , possible invention Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the now-deleted Outer South London Line, this is another Wiki-invention for the service operated on a series of rail lines. The only reference given doesn't support the article's name and the vast majority of google hits are from Wiki-clone sites and sites which have copied from here. The article thus fails verifiability and notability as the reflection of a railway service pattern which is contrary to WP:NOTTIMETABLE. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Non notable railcruft. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This covers tracks and stations which are not covered elsewhere. I don't think deleting it is the answer. The material should probably be renamed or found a different home though. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a missing article "Hull and Doncaster branch" or similar that needs to be written to cover the "Hatfield landslip" content - I'm aware of that and intend to write it 'soon'.Prof.Haddock (talk) 06:30, 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 merge to Hull & Selby Railway. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hull to York Line[edit]

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

Not a railway line. Article describes two services from List of Northern Rail routes . No such railway line as "Hull to York line" in the modern or historical record. Linked source is a timetable which does not use the term.

Comment the line is listed in the Template:Railway lines in Yorkshire and the Humber - the other lines in the section are easily verified eg http://www.wymetro.com/TrainTravel/traintimetables/RoutesAndTimetables/

Fail WP:VERIFY and possible invention Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the now-deleted Outer South London Line, this is another Wiki-invention for the service operated on a series of rail lines. The only reference given is an old timetable. The article thus fails verifiability and notability as the reflection of a railway service pattern which is contrary to WP:NOTTIMETABLE. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Non notable railcruft. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^Merge with Hull & Selby Railway. The latter lists the actual railway line. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 01:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The line clearly exists in the physical sense, which is not covered elsewhere. We need to have some coverage of this route. G-13114 (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above there already is proper coverage of the "line", under the correct/verifyable names eg Hull and Selby Railway, East Coast Mainline etc. The article is actually describing the path of a service - that service is already covered at List of Northern Rail routes. Any historical service information should be merged into the relevant articles, if it exists. (The other historically relevant line is York to Beverley Line, which I am working on. When I am finished it will definately note that Hull-York trains once used it. Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't about the fact the line exists - it does - but rather the creation of an article based on bits of lines covered elsewhere to show a timetabled service. Lamberhurst (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ unless there's a better title for the material - the name, though not common, is found in Hansard, the Journal of Transport History, and a book on the history of the East Coast Main Line. I don't see how the historical Hull and Selby Railway article is the best place for the information, when its topic doesn't appear to have existed since the 1870s. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but all the online references seem to discuss this period. Warofdreams talk 19:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is about the York to Beverley Line, as it the second. The third is a reference to the line originally called the Leeds and Selby Railway. These two lines are many miles apart and don't form any sort of continuous railway. I think the Hoole reference may be an error in the text because it actually is referring to a location in Leeds -eg Neville Hill/Cross Gates. - that can't realistic be said to be on any line or route that has ever existed between Hull-York.

Re: the "Hull and Selby" - that article covers the history of the line, under the original name. It is still in common use eg Electrification of Hull to Selby railway line 'will power future investment (Hull Daily Mail 2014) , BBC News : quote "The government has backed plans to electrify the Hull to Selby rail line"

Possibly the term "Hull to York line" might be valid for disambiguation. The current article is not good/correct/verifyable coverage. Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hull and Selby Railway and refocus on that section of this route - comments above make it clear to me that article is the best place for this material. Warofdreams talk 20:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment in terms of the usage of the phrase for train services I can see there is an argument for a simple disambiguation page.Prof.Haddock (talk) 06:47, 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.