< 7 July	9 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. Secret ^account 18:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Oscott F.C.[edit]

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

This is a non-notable amateur football team. It does not pass WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Neither does it pass WP:FOOTYN guideline for the notability of football teams as the team has not played at level 10 in England or entered the FA Cup or FA Vase. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:GNG and has not played at a sufficient sporting level. Giant Snowman 11:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG... JMHamo (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN as has not played in a national competition. no indication of GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above, team plays way below the notability cut-off -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:50, 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. Secret ^account 18:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qurum City Centre[edit]

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

NN 20,600 square metre mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage) – which this mall is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Google search only found self-published sources, blogs, our article, directories, press releases, etc. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 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 19:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hourman (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable television pilot that is in early development. Announcements have been made, but there is no evidence the pilot has not even been written yet. This is not a series, and may never be one. WP:TOOSOON Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hourman#Television. There's coverage on this potential series [1][2][3][4], but the material can be easily contained within the article on the character. Gongshow talk 02:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not taken to a pilot for 2014-15, and I don't suspect it's in competition for the 2015-16 season. This is why I only agree with article creation after a show has been confirmed, so we don't get 'maybe' articles like this. No redirect; only two real sources were just general 'The CW is looking at this among many other DC series projects' pieces. Nate • (chatter) 03:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Normally, I would say redirect but this a long way from screen time and article is small enough to delete until a fuller article could possibly exist. — Wylie pedia 16:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong Conference[edit]

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

Non-notable conference Zambelo; talk 23:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a fair amount of coverage on this conference after glancing through some Australian newspapers - e.g., [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. At the least, merging/redirecting to Hillsong Church would seem to be more optimal solutions than deletion. Gongshow talk 03:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Hillsong Church. Extensive news coverage exists. Nom has failed to do a WP:BEFORE check. -- 101.117.28.72 (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is clearly an offshoot of the notable Hillsong Church, but with an attendence of 20-30000, it is clearly not just a church event. Merging it back to the church article would probably unbalance that. The article might usefully be pruned of some of the featured speakers who do not have their own articles and are probably currnetly NN; or these should be delinked for the moment. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Association of Former Members of Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as most Google hits are about statements or visits, not about the organisation itself. As is stated on the talkpage by FMCintern: Unfortunately much of the information used must be cited from the subject's website because it is not published anywhere else., severely undermining the notability of this organisation. The Banner talk 21:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner: When I wrote that, I meant that information such as the organization's leadership and history are not available elsewhere; there are many articles and other media sources that cover the organization's work. FMCIntern (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources that I found were indeed about their activities, not about the organisation. The Banner talk 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a significant organization comprised of prominent political and former political figures operating in a non-partisan manner. It has issued a number of reports, conducts educational and charitable programs including participation by prominent people, and has the unique privilege of holding its annual meetings each year on the floor of the House of Representatives, with the proceedings reported in full in the Congressional Record. Deletion would not improve the encyclopedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly notable. Some news articles about this organization from the Google newspaper archive: "Former members of Congress recall past", Associated Press, May 24, 1986; "The congressional alumni association", UPI, May 14, 1987; "Former congressmen share their experience", UPI, September 11, 1982. Examples of less thorough but still relevant coverage: [14] [15] [16] [17]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mja, that makes three references in a tiny newpaper (circulation 10k), 2 passing mentions, passing mention/social chitchat, passing mention in an article about a group visit. Nothing to prove the organisation is notable. The Banner talk 18:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the coverage noted above shows notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree w/ Banner's analysis of the sources; they are, at least as far as this organization is concerned, tangential mentions which don't amount to significant coverage. The coverage is dependent on the individuals, who, while certainly notable during their actual careers, the mentions of the article subject just refer to them getting together to socialize, or tour Utah, as opposed to anything the group has done which establishes notability. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here IMHO... Roberticus talk 19:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.-Japan Joint Statement: The United States and Japan: Shaping the Future of the Asia-Pacific and Beyond, National Archives Hosts Discussion on Civil Rights, School groups meet Congressmen at Rothermere American Institute, Congress to Campus Will Bring Influential Decision Makers to Rhode Island College, Congress to Campus: LSU’s Reilly Center to Host Former Congressmen, just to list a few. FMCIntern (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, for what it is worth, I found this quote from President Obama: "When I visited Berlin this past June and stood at the Brandenburg Gate, I celebrated the strong and vital bond that united Americans and Germans. For three decades, The Congressional Study Group on Germany (CSGG) has worked to enrich this bond, helping to fortify the relationship between the United States and Germany. By promoting dialogue between legislators, the CSGG generates insights into our important partnership and enhances understanding between our countries. And by focusing on our shared agenda—spurring economic growth and job creation, expanding transatlantic trade and investment, and promoting freedom, security, and prosperity around the globe—the organization is helping to build a stronger future. Congratulations on 30 years of strengthening ties. I wish you all the best for the years ahead." and this quote from Angela Merkel: "The Congressional Study Group on Germany is celebrating its 30th anniversary. This in itself shows its members’ commitment to fostering the close relations between our two countries and filling them with vibrancy. This is an aim which I wholeheartedly share. I am very grateful for our meetings, which have always guaranteed a valuable exchange of views on issues of common interest. An open and trusting dialogue – that is precisely what makes the links between parliamentarians on both sides of the Atlantic such an important pillar of the German-American partnership and friendship." FMCIntern (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not really convinced. You put 5 more sources up. 3 of these don't mention the AfD subject by name at all, 1 mentions it once in the 6th paragraph, and the last one mentions in 1 time in the first sentence, but mentions the Reilly Center 5 times and the Congress to Campus program 4 times. Nor does the Obama quote mention the AfD subject by name; if the "Congressional Study Group on Germany" is notable, perhaps it should have its own article. Roberticus talk 20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Congressional Study Groups and the Congress to Campus Program are both part of the United States Association of Former Members of Congress, as mentioned in the article. You asked for evidence of what the organization actually does, this is that evidence, and now you are nit-picking. FMCIntern (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry, mr. Intern, there is no need to bully a nominator into retracting an AfD, as you try at User_talk:The_Banner#United_States_Association_of_Former_Members_of_Congress_Nomination_for_Deletion. Contrary, in my twisted mind that only acts as prove that you are involved and fighting to protect your article. The Banner talk 21:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to bully you, I was trying to argue my point, which you chose to ignore multiple times. It is frustrating when I am trying to have a discussion about one topic, and you continue to avert the discussion to another, unrelated, topic. FMCIntern (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also [18] and [19]. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rotten question: is a government source independent enough in relation to a government subsidized and chartered organisation? The Banner talk 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first of the two sources I cite is the official Deschler-Brown compilation of the precedents of the House of Representatives, which corroborates what I said at the outset of this discussion, which is that the Association of Former Members has for many years had the privilege of holding its annual meeting on the floor of the House with the proceedings published in extenso in the Congressional Record. This is a unique feature of this organization and evidence of notability. The second source I cite is an encyclopedia and not a government source at all. This is, with all respect, a misguided nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It just gives me the feeling that is supposed to be notable because it is American. Everybody here is throwing with sources, big, small or passing mentions, but nothing happens on the article. That is still a piece of promo written by a company intern based on primary sources that fail to establish notability. I am one of those twisted guys that just want to see notability in the article, I do not believe somebodies word on it. So when you have neutral proof of the notability, throw it into the article. The company intern will not create a neutral article... The Banner talk 18:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This makes a lot of sense, especially since the article has a tag for needing more third-party/independent sources. The Banner, of the sources included in this discussion, do you see any that would fulfill your requirement so far? I'd be happy to add the sources to the article. Abroham1024 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That second source of NewyorkBrad shows potential to prove notability, his first source might by failing the "independent"-criteria. None of the sources of mr. Intern. Several other sources might by useful to prove details (for instance current and former president). The Banner talk 20:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am new to editing, but it seems like the sources provided above do make the subject notable. According to Wikipedia:Notability, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Does this give merit to the articles where the subject is mentioned/discussed but is not the main topic of the source? Again, I am new to editing so I could be wrong. Abroham1024 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Adding to the above, here is an ABC News piece talking with Rep. Connie Morella, president of USAFMC. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per NewyorkBrad and Carrite and others. Funny in the Connie Morella ABC news piece, that she is characterized as "the president of a sort of recovery group for former lawmakers: The U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress." It is a kind of group that sometimes can have importance at a national level, similar to retired generals and retired presidents and judges whose views cut through a lot of b.s. occasionally in the news. --do ncr am 01:42, 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 delete. Secret ^account 19:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Alcorano[edit]

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

Fails general notability, no news articles. Staglit (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how I can get this information from anywhere else. It's a bio page and all the information is cited with links to Monica's website and OD Hunte's website. The bit at the bottom is cited from the bucks herald (a news article), what else can I include? MatthewMonck (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a musician, she has apparently only produced one single that has failed to chart, failing WP:MUSICBIO. Her alleged modeling career also has apparently attracted no notice. The only sources I could find (other than her own site and her producer's which are obviously not independent of the subject) are: the article about her appearing on a dating show in the Bucks Herald, which is her hometown paper and clearly just a local interest story; a bio in Music Glue [20] that looks like a press release and is selling a shirt with her face on it (Music Glue calls itself "the world's leading direct-to-fan e-commerce service", so not a reliable source); and a bio in Music Week [21] which only states that she'd been signed to a development deal with EMI. — Gwalla | Talk 18:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but weak delete. There are perhaps two fairly firm references (I added them after the first line), but they don't seem sufficient to meet the GNG, but I bet she'll be back in Wikipedia some day.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:55, 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 speedy delete. A9 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Deadly Venoms (album)[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable music recording that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Fails WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 20:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erhun Aksel Oztumer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played in a full professional league yet. JMHamo (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and subsequent comments. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Might be notable in the future but isn't at the moment. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY as described in nomination and previous comments. At best WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:52, 9 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) 15:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Miljković (footballer born 1982)[edit]

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

Article's subject fails to meet WP:GNG. A search on GoogleNews produces no hits, a regular Google search shows pages of statistics but no substantive coverage. I have verified that there are no articles on him in either the Serbian or Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias. While he may appear to meet WP:NSPORT, he does not meet the the more-fundamental requirements of WP:GNG. KDS4444^Talk 09:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous appearances in a fully-professional league, as confirmed by reliable sources, so this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting, to bring in line with WP:GNG. Nomination smacks of WP:POINT. Giant Snowman 17:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was my understanding that the policies outlined in WP:NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL, both under the heading of WP:NSPORTS, were only intended as useful guidelines, rules of thumb, and that WP:GNG still had to be met to justify a full article. This article is over five years old now with no meaningful citations, and I was able to find no evidence of this individual showing promise of becoming notable in the future. As a permanent WP:SUBSTUB, then, it appeared to fall in the category of deletable articles. Please clarify for me. Thanks. KDS4444^Talk 22:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Mice never shop (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure to meet GNG is reason to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Clearly exists with sources such as [22]. Other sources show professional games. Nfitz (talk) 18:41, 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 19:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - doesn't pass WP:GNG but doesn't need to because he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. It works the same way as WP:NOLYMPICS. There have been instances where football players have had articles deleted because they fail GNG and only just pass NFOOTBALL. But that's not the case here. He didn't play one or two games of top-flight football - he played 37. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NFOOTBALL and therefore notable. As I understand it, the GNG and subject-specific notability guidelines are complementary and only one needs to be met. Fame =/= notability, as is the case here: he may not be famous but is still significant (by the standards of the sport notability guideline). BethNaught (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. Current consensus is that fully professional league or senior international appearances are sufficient for notability. Fenix down (talk) 13:34, 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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 02:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nabi Su[edit]

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

Despite the claims in the article's opening sentence that this is a hybrid martial art, most of the sources seem only to recognise 'Nabi Su' as a New York based martial arts school. Even then, specific discussion of Nabi Su is painfully thin. Much of the article's content seems to be original research or at best a novel synthesis of fact. For example: the article contains the claim "Perhaps most importantly, however, Pai studied Yang style T'ai Chi Ch'uan with 4th generation Yang style t'ai chi master Cheng Man-ch'ing." this assertion is cited to a you tube video that shows Cheng Man-ch'ing practising Tai Chi (alone); it in no way supports the claim that Pai studied under him. The Halevy reference is about as close as any reference in this article comes to demonstrating notability, but it doesn't actually focus on Nabi Su as an art/style/school; it simply discusses Tai chi and includes Carolyn Campora. Some of the sources offer discussion of Pai and, to a lesser extent, Yun Mu Kwan, but the subject of this article is Nabi Su and I can find precious little sources to demonstrate the notability of this subject. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 13:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hybrid martial art just means that the art can no longer be classed as of a particular national origin and says nothing of the size. I remember pushing for that classification because the original Chinese martial art was clearly wrong. With respect to size this school hardly seems notable but still it has been around for quite awhile. Personally I see notability in its oddity and for the moment reserve judgement.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing that shows this martial art is widespread or notable. It appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems more about a school than a widespread martial art. Lacks coverage for GNG and fails WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Part 1: Reliable Sources and Notability In answer to Bellerophon's comments above: This martial art style is notable. 1) Popular Science magazine did a feature article on this martial art style in 1968. The referenced URL link will lead you directly to the article. The article was written when the style was named "Yun Mu Kwan Karate." The name was changed to "Nabi Su" in 1987. 2) The referenced memoir "Ambivalent Zen" features descriptions of the developing Yun Mu Kwan/Nabi Su Tai Chi and Kung Fu style throughout the book. The memoir was written by Lawrence Shainberg, a well known author. It was published in 1995 by Random House, in hardcover and paperback, and is still in print. 3) Ramon Korff, the photographer who documented the early Yun Mu Kwan Karate/Nabi Su years, is a Pulitzer prize winning photographer. Some of his photos from 1964 have been retrieved from the Puerto Rican Spanish language newspaper archives of "El Dia," now known as "El Nuevo Dia." Other photographs taken by him include a visit to Yun Mu Kwan/Nabi Su by Eido Tai Shimano Roshi. Eido Roshi is an internationally known Roshi, author and founder of the Zen Studies Society, New York Zendo Shobo-Ji (a New York City Zendo) and Dai Bosatsu Zendo Kongo-Ji (a New York State Monastery). These photographs document notable events. 4)An article from the now defunct Connecticut Weekly newspaper "Fairpress," which was a division of the Gannett publishing company, discussed Min Pai's "zen healing."

These are all wide ranging, professional, reliable sources.

Unfortunately, many of these sources predate the internet and are not currently available on-line. The 1968 Popular Science article is available on-line.

It should also be noted that none of the publications listed above are martial arts vanity presses or martial art specialty sources. It is indeed rare for a martial art style with so few practitioners to receive notable references from main steam publications spanning nearly five decades.

Nabi Su has been a unique evolving style for more than 50 years. Although it does not have a large number of practitioners, because it is notable, the New York Times, the health/exercise cable TV program "Workout From Within," Sinovision Cable TV, and other news media have requested Nabi Su practitioners to comment or appear on their programs. (To further document Nabi Su's notability, I have added a second Halvey "Workout from Within" reference from a different episode, and I have added a reference to the SinoVision English Language Chinese News cable TV program.)

Reply Part 2: Chinese Style or Hybrid Martial Art? Nabi Su is an accepted American grown "Chinese Style" form of Kung Fu. For example, SinoVision English Language cable TV channel invited Nabi Su practitioners to perform at the media "kick off" celebration of the new Shanghai Television cable TV show "A Fist Full of Kung Fu." Their purpose in selecting Nabi Su Kung Fu as the only performers for their media event was to highlight the interrelationship of Chinese and American martial arts culture. Nabi Su is also correctly classified as a "modern hybrid martial art." It is not a hybrid martial art in the sense of "Mixed Martial Arts" which have come to mean an aggressive sport/fighting style. It is a hybrid in the sense that it developed from varied influences which have evolved into a new, unique, identifiable style of its own. Some modern hybrids are famous - Jeet Kune Do - for example, while other are little known - Bartitsu, Sanjuro. The Wikipedia "List Chinese of Chinese Martial Arts" includes a section of "Modern Hybrids" under which are listed several styles developed and primarily practiced in the United States and other countries outside of China. I originally placed the Nabi Su article under that listing, but other editors believe it was improperly placed there. Although I disagree, I understand the reasoning, and therefore listing Nabi Su under the separate Hybrid Martial Art style would also be appropriate.

Reply Part 3: YouTube Links and Extraneous Material Removed The Nabi Su article was substantially rewritten by other editors who added numerous YouTube links and made other changes which added much information that was not strictly about Nabi Su and its creation. I have deleted substantial extraneous material. I look forward to continue improving this article and meeting all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Mary Vaccaro (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Popular Science issue is about someone trying to learn karate, at best a passing mention. Several of the other sources don't even mention this style by name. According to the website, the school/art has 1 teacher who does all kung fu classes and no locations outside of NYC. Clearly does not meet any of the notability criteria for martial arts at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Papaursa's Comments The Popular Science article is introducing "Karate" to the American public. It was written in 1968. The article goes into great detail about the moves in the style, what the stances look like, the punches, the routine of the class, the slow motion movement of the forms, the fast movement of the sparring. It has many references to and direct quotes from Min Pai. For example, I quote the article:

Pai explains: "They cannot make contact. If they do they will break bones." What is karate? Karate, he says, consists of blocks, punches, and kicks delivered with enormous force. "It is purely defensive," says Pai. "But when you do decide to defend, the first blow must break something."

"Your arms are hoses with the water running out of your fingertips," the master began. "Your hand is an arrow in flight; it has no energy; but when it strikes, then is penetrates. Your body is a whip - weak in itself but strong wen focused. You will learn to know your body so well that when a fly lands on your shoulder you will feel off balance."

"Keep your body straight," said Pai. "Hold your toes parallel. Don't wind up. Wider stance. Get lower! Squeeze your rear. Squeeze! Pull your forward hand back hard!"

"Americans have a terrible time; they always want to hunch their shoulder and wind up for punches and duck." In karate, instead of dodging, you block.

I highly disagree that the article only gives a "passing mention." The entire article is the reporter's detailed description of what he sees, feels and is taught by Min Pai at the Yun Mu Kwan Karate Institute.

In answer to your concern that "the school/art has 1 teacher who does all kung fu classes and no locations outside of NYC", I have added a new section listing four schools that are currently teaching versions of Min Pai's Nabi Su style. All of these schools share the same history, all are independently run, and none of them are currently associated with each other. There are a few other people teaching the style, but I am not authorized to list their schools. I imagine now that a list is created, others may expand it. Thank you for suggesting this improvement.

As to the fact that I have made few other contributions, yes, this is my first article, and I will be writing/collaborating on more articles. This is not my only interest. It is my first article and I will continue improving it and defending it. I have been studying Wikipedia guidelines, and I intend to be an active and responsible editor on various subjects.

I know there are not too many women editors/contributors, and that is another reason that I intend to contribute and be an active Wikipedian.

Please let me know what other information you need to improve this article.

Mary Vaccaro (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, much of your argument for Nabi Su's notability hinges on it's evolvement from Yun Mu Kwan. On the subject of notability: In order for there to be an independent Nabi Su article we need to be able to see why Nabi Su is notable in its own right, not by it's relation to Yun Mu Kwan, and it doesn't appear that it is -- at least not by Wikipedia's standards. On the subject of sourcing: The Popular Science article discusses 'karate' and makes reference to Yun Mu Kwan, it does not mention Nabi Su. Because of this, although that article may be of limited use in verifying the early history/evolution of Nabi Su -- as an aside, the relationship between Nabi Su and Yun Mu Kwan seems poorly documented and requires much stronger sourcing -- it does not help with establishing the notability of an art form which did not, at that point in time, exist. Finally, it may interest you to know that there are many female experienced editors on Wikipedia, and several prominent administrators. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Bellerophon's Comments 1) Perhaps the Nabi Su article is not clear enough, and I will work to correct it. Min Pai developed Nabi Su out of the art he originally learned in Korea. Although the art he was taught was called Yun Mu Kwan, Min Pai, from the time he opened his own school in the 1950's, was actively changing and evolving his original style. The school that was called "The Yun Mu Kwan Karate Institute" is what came to be called Nabi Su. It does not refer to the old Yun Mu Kwan style. (This might be similar to stating that in an article called "The Beatles," discussing "The Quarrymen" is actually a different subject and not the Beatles. "The Qarrymen" were an early version of the Beatles. They changed the name when they realized someone else already had it.) Min Pai changed the name from Yun Mu Kwan to Nabi Su to differentiate what he was practicing from the name of the old style he originally learned in Korea. He did not change the name to Nabi Su and then create the style. After creating the style, he changed the name. Discussing Min Pai's martial art style during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s is discussing Nabi Su. The name was changed AFTER the style was developed. The Nabi Su Wikipedia article is about Min Pai's development of a new martial art style that combined his Korean art with Chinese Kung Fu, Chinese Tai Chi, and Japanese Zazen. These changes occurred over decades. By the early 1970s, he was already accentuating the Kung Fu, Tai Chi and Zazen aspects of the practice over the few remaining Korean elements. By the time of the official name change, the style was already fully and uniquely developed into a new art. Any discussion of Min Pai's style, especially from the late 1960s through the 1970s is necessarily about the Nabi Su style. The original Korean Yun Mu Kwan that Pai learned was long gone by then. (When one searches for the history of the original Yun Mu Kwan as taught in Korea, it seems to have disappeared as its own art form, and it seems to have been melded into the foundation of Tai Kwan Do. Yun Mu Kwan is not a style that is currently practiced or known as a style, as far as I can see, in the United States. Even in Korea, it seems to be more of a historical style.) The "Yun Mu Kwan" in the names of the currently practicing schools that are related to Nabi Su do not refer to the old, original Yun Mu Kwan style, they refer to the style Min Pai created and eventually renamed "Nabi Su." To differentiate themselves, the four remaining Min Pai schools have taken on differing names, largely based upon where they were in their relationship with Min Pai or where they were in the evolution of the style: "Yun Mu Kwan," "Nabi Su," "Min Pai's Yun Mu Kwan," and "Wellspring Zen Monastery."

2) Regarding the number of female editors, Wikipedia states: "Information on the gender gap can be found at meta:Gender gap. The significant and stable under-representation of women results in persistently unbalanced coverage (e.g. articles related to football are much more developed than articles related to motherhood) in Wikipedia. The gender gap may be driven significantly by Wikipedia's conflict-oriented culture. Experienced female editors can be very successful—they are more likely to become administrators than men—but they are more likely to leave if treated aggressively in discussions, especially as new editors, when their good-faith contributions are more likely to be reverted than a similarly good-faith contribution by a man." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians

Mary Vaccaro (talk) 05:00, 8 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 19:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral but critical comments for now: The article's been changed substantively enough since this AfD started that it needs to be carefully reviewed again for WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE compliance, the key question being whether this is an actual notable martial art, or simply a school of yun mu kwan under a new name. I remain skeptical, because many of the added sources appear to be for fluff, e.g. quotations that not only do not help establish notability, they don't mention nabi su at all, and are not even of any relevance to the article and should be deleted, e.g. "Master Min Pai demonstrates the ancient Zen art of healing, which stems from the disciplines of Kung Fu, Tai Chi and Karate.... Kneeling in perfect silence and stillness... Master Pai achieved the transfer of energy...." This is just new-agey gibberish. Second, various bits of local news coverage have been added, but being briefly interviewed for commentary on women's safety and martial arts, for example, doesn't at all help establish notability or tell us anything encyclopedic about nabi su, its history, its founder, or why it is notable in its own right. And so on. I did not start back at the top of the article and examine every citation, I just picked two and both failed. While I appreciate the principal author's earnestness, the effort appears to be essentially promotional, and a bit standoffish, as if there's a right for every martial arts school and variant to have an article here. That editor also needs to see WP:DIVA: Extensive but selective quotation of a projectpage on female editors to give the impression "I'm a woman editor who is going to quit if I don't get my way, because deleting this article would amount to being aggressive toward me" is not going to win anyone over at all. It's manipulative and unconvincing; being a fallacious argument to emotion, it more importantly does not rationally advance any sources- or policy-based argument for keeping this article. All of that said, the article has improved in some ways, and I'm reluctant to say it should be deleted outright. Someone from the martial arts wikiproject who is good at "rescuing" trouble articles should probably have a go at this and see if it can be both shored up with real, relevant facts and sources, and stripped of unencyclopedic blather and hand-waving. The entire thing also needs copyediting to comply with WP:MOS in about a dozen ways. Should these issues not be addressed in a timely manner, consider this comment support for "weak delete, or merge to Yun mu kwan". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of Nabi Su. I agree with the points made in the previous delete comments. The gender of the author is irrelevant to the article's notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to SMcCandlish: Thank you for your remarks. I agree that this article needs editorial help. I will study the manual of style and make corrections over the weekend. I appreciate any further advice you may have on improving this article. I would also appreciate any editorial contributions and/or guidance from other knowledgeable editors. Mary Vaccaro (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Inappropriate Remarks by "Anonyous User" How do I deal with an anonymous user who keeps adding statements that one of the 4 Nabi Su schools is not "authorized to teach" etc.? As soon as I removed the remarks, they get replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Vaccaro (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at your user talk page. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 07:49, 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 23:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DhoomBros[edit]

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

Non-notable group, could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Most search results I found were self-published and therefore not reliable. Also, article creator has a conflict of interest. Drm310 (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I would have speedied this if it hadn't been afded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They have a attracted a teensy weensy bit of notice, but short of what would be needed to establish notability. Good luck on their career, but now is too soon for a wikipedia article on them. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 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). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reconceptualizing India Studies[edit]

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

At first blush, this article seems well-referenced with enough sources to justify the notability of its subject. Verifying the references, however, reveals that they don't establish notability. Several discuss the subject of the book and not the book itself. Others are about the author, and a few are the author's work surrounding the book (a lecture explaining the book, for example). The subject, as far as I can tell, fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 24 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 16:31, 1 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, czar ♔ 18:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I'll continue working on this later. Most of the citations are to unreliable sources and need to be removed, but I've found at least one review not in the current article that has me leaning toward keep. Should know one way or the other in 24 hours or so. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I've removed several of the marginal sources. What remains is sufficient to establish notability, particularly the review in The Hindu and the several academic talks given on the work. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:58, 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 23:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Victory FC supporters[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; this topic fails WP:GNG, it has not received significant coverage. At the most it should be redirect to Melbourne Victory FC#Support, but even that section is full of OR and POV and needs sorting. Giant Snowman 12:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure about whether it's independently notable, but if the consensus is that this topic doesn't merit a stand-alone then there should definitely be a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems a silly idea for an article. Do we have any for the supporters of other clubs, in any sport? I suspect the article's creator wanted to tell us how wonderful the club's fans are, but naturally the article will also attract comment about the the negative aspects too. Neither perspective is neutral. In my book an article that will primarily attract non-neutral content is a bad article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Do we have any for the supporters of other clubs, in any sport?" Well there's plenty in Category:Association football supporters..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of those are likely also non-notable, let's not fall into the trap of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, thanks for the response ChrisTheDude, but I have to agree with the Snowman, and I still feel it's a bad idea for an article. And given the massive number of articles on soccer/Association football related matters there are on Wikipedia, that's not really "plenty". HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, maybe "plenty" was overstating it a bit, I was just pointing out that yes there are indeed other articles on this sort of topic out there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 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, czar ♔ 18:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (redirect if you must) - 20,000 people? I've seen more at weekend markets. They might be the biggest group of supporters in Australian football ("soccer") but they don't come close to AFL or NRL fan-bases and they simply haven't done anything to suggest any form of notability. An article about where they sit? Please! Long-established fan clubs or groups with a significant history might meet WP:ORGDEPTH but just "the fans" of an A-League club generally? Not so much. Unfortunately for them, the fans of the Western Sydney Wanderers are most likely to be collectively notable, mostly because of their coverage in reliable sources stemming from violent altercations with police, property damage and internal conflict. I don't think we should have an article about them either, but you know what I mean. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. No real indication that the supporters of the club have recieved in depth reliable coverage. A lot of the sources are just stats about attendences and WP:ROUTINE news reporting about the sort of events that happen to some degree to all groups of football fans. Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are two other bigger football codes in Australia than this. The article will primarily attract excited, enthusiastic (typically unsourced) positive comment from the fans themselves, and negative comment from those pointing out the negative aspects. The only neutral content that could be justified might be numbers of attendees at games (small by comparison with other Australian sports, so not notable) and formal membership numbers for official supporter groups, and I don't know if such groups are well enough organised to be able to supply such figures. If such numbers exist, they belong in the club article, not in a separate one. This is tabloid fancruft of the worst kind. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 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. After more than three weeks and two relistings, it doesn't appear that anyone who thinks that this should be kept is going to show up. Deor (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offaly–Antrim hurling rivalry[edit]

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

The article does not indicate any notability of the rivelry between these two teams any more so than the rivalry between any other pair of teams. There are no sources to support the topic's notability. The one source merely confirms the teams first game. It's a fabricated up topic. ww2censor (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 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) 18:12, 1 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, czar ♔ 18:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There are hurling county rivalries but this is not one of them. Snappy (talk) 21:57, 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 merge to Xojo (the merge target specified in the first AfD, REAL Software, is now a redirect to that article), since no one is advocating that the article be kept, the result of the previous AfD (although not carried out) was that the article be merged, and Whpq has offered to undertake the merger. Deor (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Perlman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly promotion WP:COI rubbish on an unnotable WP:BLP individual. Was previously AFDed which somehow was concluded as "merge", even though consensus appeared to be delete. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable outside his product's community. (Also, why isn't this archived after almost 2 months?) -- Erik Siers (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: AfD wasn't created properly and never listed on a log page--I've reformatted and listed it to give it a fair hearing.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 05:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question What happened to this article? The previous afd was closed as merge but the admin didn't merge it. ([23])--180.155.72.174 (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The admin who closed the AFD is not responsible for merging the content. Merger of content is something that the general population of editors can handle. The closing admin did tag the article for merger after AFD, but nobody followed through, and somebody rewote the article and removed the tag. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 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, czar ♔ 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the original AFD outcome. If the outcome of this article is merge, I will undertake to do the merge in line with WP:BLP policy. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the result of the first AfD discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 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 redirect to Code golf#Dedicated golfing languages. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 02:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GolfScript[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or other notability criteria: sources are primary, with the GolfScript site itself providing three cites, the implementation modules another two, and a single non-primary cite involving a game that by itself is far from establishing this is a notable programming language. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Redirect (article creator). It's one of the more widely used languages on the code golf StackExchange subsite (widespread use discussed here, here, and here), as well as on other code golfing sites. It's also the most used language on shinh's golf server. APerson (talk!) 22:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first link, "J and GolfScript suck all the enjoyment out of Code Golf", is a message board and not considered to be a reliable source. Ditto the second link, "On GolfScript and language bigotry". Ditto the third link, "GolfScript: A Practical Example [closed]". Any magazine writeups or reviews that you know of? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in that message boards are covered by WP:SPS; however, they can be used as "reliable" sources about themselves (per WP:SELFSOURCE). In this case, the claim being made (i.e. that GolfScript is widely used on that site) is a perfectly valid statement given those sources, since the claim fits all the criteria in that policy. APerson (talk!) 13:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But those kind of sources can't be used to establish notability. My concern is that the language is unknown outside of the message boards of this particular community. That's enough to warrant a mention at Code golf, but (in my opinion) not enough to warrant a standalone article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Redirect per Mark viking. APerson (talk!) 12:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Code golf has received coverage in independent, secondary sources, but (as best I can tell) that coverage does not extend to the specialized languages developed for that community. If this pastime takes off, a greater diversity of sources will follow and we can revisit the topic then. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Code golf#Dedicated golfing languages, where it is already mentioned. I could not find sufficient in depth RS to establish notability. Golfscript clearly exists and it seems due weight to mention it in the Code golf article. The topic is a plausible search term and per WP:PRESERVE, we should seek to preserve verifiable information--in this case a link to the appropriate section of another article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is a very notable topic and plent of sources can be found to improve the article. Remember Afd is not for clean up. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbath[edit]

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

Request to add citations for verification has been there for over three years and nothing has been done to improve the article since Marcocapelle (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep: very notable concept. See Deletion is not cleanup for your concerns about sources. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep There are plenty of WP:RS sources on the article to justify notability. Content quality is not an issue for AfD, so I am asking for a snow close. John from Idegon (talk) 18:18, 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 speedily deleted by User:Gilliam. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who are mystry shoppers in business studies?[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10. Topic is covered under existing article Mystery shopping. Nominator and I edit-conflicted on tag placement. --Finngall ^talk 17:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Finngall. I would say this is borderline WP:CSD#A11 also. This is what AfD isn't for, articles that meet WP:CSD criteria. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:12, 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 02:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Murić[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. Original deletion rationale remains valid i.e. fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Note this article is also a direct copy and paste of my own sandbox... Giant Snowman 12:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This story has appeared several times in the last few months in Croatian mainstream sports press... Maybe this player really is a star in the making, and he does something notable soon, but until then, it's just yet another in a long line of escapades involving Zdravko Mamić - on its own it seems to be a violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:CBALL. It's just too soon to tell. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. – Michael (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the GNG.[24] Mice never shop (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Player will be part of the 1st squad of Ajax and is likely to make his debut in the next season. Would be a shame to delete the valuable concent that has been made so far User:WR227 (talk) 0:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's an invaled argument. Saying that the players will be part of the first team squad and make his debut next season violates WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia does not operate on that. – Michael (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly valid argument if it is almost certain, and that's verifiable. But it is? What does the media think? What has the coach said? Nfitz (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not almost certain. What happens if he tears his ACL during training? Uh oh, he's done for the season. So it's a perfectly INvalid. WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief. What if the Easter Bunny ends the world tomorrow. It's ALMOST certain ... how is there any damage to keeping the article for a few weeks, rather than wasting people's time with these absurd unnecessary and temporary deletions. Nfitz (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This player never making it as a professional is significantly more likely to happen... Giant Snowman 11:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possible. Note I wasn't saying that it is a valid argument if he is almost certain to play. I didn't say he is almost certain to play. I asked what was the media and coach thinking. It's immaterial however, given the article meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Any article can be undeleted once notability is real. Crystal balls are fine for creating articles, but once here at AfD, something more substantive aught to be expected. And I for one do not see it in this case. KDS4444^Talk 04:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG as per shopless mice. Nfitz (talk) 19:01, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are all the same news of mid-June. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 18:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you can't use all the Google News search being recent as being proof it's BLP1E given that Google News only searches back a few weeks. There's other news sources from well before June. Such as [25] Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE transfer speculation that we see dozens of every year. Young Player X linked to transfer to Big Club Y! Giant Snowman 11:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't normally see numbers lik thate. In particular though, you don't normally see multiple articles of that ilk over an extended period of time Nfitz (talk) 01:09, 15 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. The keep vote above contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. Statements above that he will play are pure WP:CRYSTAL, other links above suggesting GNG seem to me to be WP:ROUTINE transfer talk. Agree with comments above that article can be restored once a (any!) notability guideline is satisfied. Fenix down (talk) 13:37, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chopt[edit]

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

Advertisement with no independent sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant outside coverage found. --Finngall ^talk 18:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Changing !vote to keep per sources provided by Northamerica1000. --Finngall ^talk 17:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Northamerica1000 JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure why this is up for deletion. Chopt is famous in the NY/DC area and I came to Wikipedia to find out more information about it and was surprised none exists. Why does Chipotle get an article but not Chopt? This is an up-and-coming restaraunt that has already made some serious waves and is going to be very famous soon. Cas5nq (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chipotle "gets" an article because it has received a large amount of mainstream media coverage which can be used as verifiable source material for an encyclopedia article. I couldn't find any such independent references for this company. Also please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:UPANDCOMING. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 20:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine review, CBS New York, QSR Magazine, Slate. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the some of the sources NA1K has provided are not quality (Passing mention and reviews!) the remiander do provide the depth required for WP:Note. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote takes the context of WP:CORPDEPTH into consideration, which states (in part), "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 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 speedily deleted by User:Gilliam per CSD G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carpet as armenian symbol[edit]

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

Content is solely a POV essay. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 and has been tagged as such. Link JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:28, 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 23:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Hardie[edit]

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

Hardie fails the guidelines for articles on politicians. He is not a member of the Knesset, nor has he ever been. He is just considering running for it. We do not create articles on people who might, possibly, at some point, run for a political office. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possible future political candidate? Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:POLITICIAN, but what about WP:GNG? A little coverage from a local TV station; an article in Haaretz; not nearly enough for notability. The self-promotion is unbelievable; I especially loved the line in the Haaretz article, "He already knows which Hollywood stars he wants to play his character if his memoirs are turned into a movie." Putting it kindly, let's just say this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. He might be notable someday, but he isn't yet. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 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. Per consensus that there is suffiicient coverage to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahuvah Gray[edit]

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

This is an article on a person who gained passing notice for writing an autobiography, but no widespread, indepth coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There appears to be significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Yedioth Ahronoth [26]; The Jewish Press [27]. Added ((Find sources)) for Hebrew spelling. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the sources listed by הסרפד, there are additional sources in the article's external links section and more elsewhere. The in-depth coverage about the article's subject from independent reliable and verifiable sources meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. The handful of hits on Google are interviews with her because she wrote a book, or a book review. This kind of coverage is not significant. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently WP:AUTHOR is somewhat stricter then required by WP:GNG. In any case, it has been argued that when an autobiography meets the notability guideline for books (which I believe it does), it is simpler to keep the article about the author then to rewrite it as an article about the book, as they are essentially equivalent. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm also familiar with Ms. Gray, living in Jerusalem, and I can say that she's done absolutely nothing notable since writing her autobiography. The book had no lasting impact, either. Anne Frank is notable for one book because her diary was translated into dozens of languages and her life is still researched and discussed decades later. Ahuvah Gray does not have lasting notability. Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't decided whether I believe she is notable. But Yoni -- the reason you gave in your !vote is not a valid reason for a delete !vote. You can refer to WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR alone as reasons for a Keep !vote. But not for a delete !vote. Because if the person meets GNG, it matters not whether they satisfy BIO or AUTHOR. Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As for lasting notability, the articles that cover her or her book(s) range over twelve years, hardly ephemeral:
      2001: Jewish Journal; 2004: Aish; 2006 Jewish Action (OU); 2012: Yediot Aharonot; 2013: Jewish Press
      הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are sufficient WP:V & WP:RS, some cited in this AfD above by other users that now need to be incorporated into the article and expand it. Added templates ((Writer-stub)) & ((Judaism-bio-stub)). Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The lady seems to ahve done nothing but convert to Judaism and write about it. I am not competent to judge how significnat she is, but not everyone who writes and autobiography is notable.~~ Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC) amended Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron:, FYI she has and is far beyond that, as you can see from the above refs, she has become a renowned international speaker, has attracted much attention from various mainstream Jewish and Israeli news sources, and has become a role-model for both Jews seeking inspiration and for potential converts, all qualifying her for WP:NOTABILITY, so she is definitely not a "run of the mill" convert who just happens to have written a book as well. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:05, 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. Secret ^account 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daire Nolan (politician)[edit]

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

Nolan is a newly elected member of Wicklow County Council, and as a local councillor who has never held national office, he is not notable and fails WP:Politician. He has not achieved national prominence in any other area to merit an article. From the wealth of personal detail without references (exact date of birth, mother's occupation, he likes Taekwondo), this article is obviously self-authored (User:DazMarz1988), so its really just a vanity, puff piece for a non notable local councillor. Note that there are 949 local councillors in the Republic of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Members of county councils are not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do county councils count as top-level sub-national legislative bodies or as local legislative bodies in Ireland, I though we allowed top-level sub-national legislature members?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't. In common with most other countries, Ireland has no sub-national legislative bodies. This only applies to states and provinces in a handful of countries which have genuine devolved government, not just to local authorities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nolan has not done anything notable yet. He has merely become a first-time council member and as such does not warrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia. — O'Dea (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since position does not count as a sub-national one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of 32 members of an Irish county council, so an elected politician. Perhaps a more substantial role than an American county commissioner but the fact that the county seat has a population of 10,000 or so indicates to me that this particular case doesn't clear the SNG high bar for politicians. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have removed all unsourced information as per BLP guideines, we are left with 4 sentences. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. ossible created by the subject themself DazMarz1988 (talk · contribs). Murry1975 (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 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. Secret ^account 19:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil Bhaile Brigín[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN primary school. Was previously deleted at AfD -- with all six editors !voting Delete. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as the proposer is well aware, I would normally vote to redirect such a school. However in this instance I must concur that not only is the school not notable, but apart from the 'sandwiches and other refreshments' that were provided for its inauguration (the other source is a dead link), extremely little is known about it all all - too little in fact to be worth a redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kudpung - Not worth bothering redirecting a local small non notable school. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:27, 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 Castle Point. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woodham Ley Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school for children ages 4-11. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Castle Point per documented, longstanding consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Castle Point per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Castle Point per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:24, 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 Vancouver School Board. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria Annex[edit]

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

NN school that provides education for children grades K-5. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vancouver School Board per documented, longstanding consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vancouver School Board per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:35, 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 Step Up All In#Soundtrack. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Step Up All In (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable, yet-to-be-released music recording. Fails WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 15:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominating for the same reason as nom the "sister" album:

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

(Article was created by the same editor as a partly copy-paste incl. AfD tag.) Sam ^Sing! 01:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film's page until further notice. Also note, there's a duplicate page at Step Up All In(soundtrack) waiting to be A10'd. Ansh666 02:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be honest: I don't think the author is acting in good faith here. Pretending that an upcoming album - the soundtrack for an upcoming movie, at that - has charted and been reviewed positively, using misleading or just plain wrong links as citations, and all of that in a duplicate article created after the first was sent to AfD...either they're trolling, advertising, or hallucinating. And none of those are good for the 'pedia. Ansh666 11:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now they've introduced the false info/sources into this one, removing the AfD tag in the process. Getting a bit out of hand... Ansh666 13:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. I've added the sources from the other page, one of which is a review from AllMusic. There were claims of the album hitting the Canadian charts, but I can't find the actual link. The claim and the links are still viewable at this edit, though, if anyone wants to give them a look. In any case, a redirect would be the best thing to do in this instance. I can see where the other soundtracks have received notice and more sourcing may be forthcoming. If so, then it would be good to have a good article copy to pull from. If not, then it can remain a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake- the review was for another soundtrack in the franchise. Still, a redirect would be the best thing in this instance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. If not for Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap I would submit Delete as "Step Up All In (soundtrack)" is not a plausible search term.--Pink Bull 17:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both with the usual caveats, it's currently too soon for establishing notability. Sam ^Sing! 01:16, 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 16:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Break the Safe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. (I should've mentioned this earlier, but if this gets deleted, could someone please move Break the Safe (game show) here?) Laun chba ller 08:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rush rush rush, The content has just been hacked. maybe give time for contributers to respond. Gregkaye (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly that the diff does not go to to this edit. I've removed all of it because Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.--Laun chba ller 10:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't speak German, but [28] appears to be reliable coverage (I can read the review with an on-line translation, but I have a harder time judging the quality of the source). I suspect a German speaker would be able to find more... Hobit (talk) 19:39, 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 01:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable game, The only one I know is this crappy one –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:23, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to satisfy the GNG. I've looked at the German page cited by Hobit, and I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source in the WP meaning of the term. The site hosts game reviews by (apparently) amateur reviewers—the one who reviewed this game is identified on the site's contact page as a mechanical engineer. No different from a book review on Goodreads or Amazon in my opinion. Deor (talk) 12:15, 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 delete. Secret ^account 19:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Physicx[edit]

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

Very poorly referenced article about a subject of dubious notability. I can't find any good refs, and as written, this seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (creative professionals). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 1 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, czar ♔ 14:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Makes many claims for notability but fails to make good on the Reliable Sources. One link is dead, the other is a blog and the last does not even mention this "dancer". - Pmedema (talk) 17:12, 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 no consensus. Secret ^account 19:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Count Dooku[edit]

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

I don't think this character meets the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. There are only two sources in the entire article. All of the information on that article is probably WP:OR and gained by watching the movies he appeared in. There would be very few reliable sources to cover his whole life story except for Star Wars wikis, which are not WP:RS. Nathan121212 (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DONTBITE, I will only say, Christopher Lee is such a huge draw that he can get the New York Times to talk seriously about essentially, a comic book character. And because it is the New York Times, they go to it with great dispatch, and do not just talk about Christopher Lee, so let us not hear any waffling about "notability is not inherited", please. Anarchangel (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At most, redirect to list of characters. --EEMIV (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major Star Wars character not notable? What nonsense. Andrew (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a fansite. So the article about a fiction character should have a chapter in which the reception of the character is discussed based on reliable sources.Otherwise it should be merge or redirect to a list.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That New York Times article mention Count Dooku in the first paragraph and then launches into a retrospective of the actor's career. It's an interesting read, but there's virtually nothing to say about Count Dooku. Empire magazine did a bit of a spotlight. But this seems mostly to be inherited notability. Can anyone actually demonstrate notability without resorting to WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:ILIKEIT? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the NYT but it is easy to find more such as unique insight into the character of Count Dooku. As easy as A, B, C... Andrew (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? If you keep up with the personal attacks, I'll take you to WP:ANI. Insinuating that an editor is incompetent does not demonstrate notability of an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stover's book, used as the major reference in the article, is based on the screenplay by George Lucas (and co-written by him), so is not independent of the character's creator. Notability really isn't inherited, so being played by Christopher Lee does not make Dooku notable in his own right. Philg88 ^♦talk 11:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a major character in two feature films, 5 seasons (so far) of a significant animated series and numerous comic books including (from memory) a series dedicated to the character and his history. I'm all for deleting insignificant secondary characters but this character's interactions with lead characters defined major plot-lines running across all 6 films to date (Anakin being forced to reveal his feelings to Padme, losing his hand, saving the Emperor and killing Dooku to start his turn to the dark side). Add that the character was portrayed by a living legend of stage and screen and I, personally, don't think notability is a struggle here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article is as notable as several editors here are trying to assert, would it have not improved in its 12 years of existance? Nathan121212 (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be improved; it just has to be notable. See WP:NEGLECT. (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand your point at all - your link suggests the article has been edited (improved) more than 2200 times since its creation in 2002. It's also viewed 12,000 times a month and those statistics suggest its nomination here has coincidentally coincided with a dip in page views (the opposite of what normally happens). St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point is, if the subject of the article is so notable, there would be no problem finding sources and there would have been more than one source added in its 12 years and 2,000 edits. Nathan121212 (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... better take a better look at WP:NOEFFORT, for NinjaRobotPirate has it correct. There is no mandate that a notable topic must be improved, only that it has the WP:POTENTIAL for such. The topic of Count Dooku need not be the focus of any of the sources discussing him, only that what sources do discuss him do so in a more-than-trivial manner. And while a lack of improvement could possibly indicate laziness or inattention on the part of others, such neglect does not equate to non-notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless notability proved. It's a commonly-visited article (looked like about 400 visits a day, rounded?), so it seems like a worthwhile redirect (to List of Star Wars characters, I gather? Not the most informative piece, but work with what you've got). That said, Dooku is a fairly major character in a massive franchise. Not saying that guarantees him a place by any means, but it's an indicator we should have a look for any sources. The nominator says we won't find many reliable sources about his fictional history, but that's not all we're looking for -- did the actor win any awards? Did Dooku become a popular character, both in and out of the Star Wars fandom?
Those sources could very well not exist, and we shouldn't assume they do, but I am hesitant to outright delete this without some searching. Saw some headway into this, with the Empire link, but we'll need more if this is to stand alone. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate List of Star Wars characters. He might be portrayed by a great actor, and present in several spinoff media, but we don't cover plot-only articles. We need development or reception information on the character for a proper encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to WP:WAX, but we do have plot-heavy articles on the fictional elements Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Darth Vader, Darth Maul, Ewoks, Millennium Falcon, Death Star, Wookiees, and even Imperial Stormtroopers. Is major villain Count Dooku simply not evil enough? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply None of your articles listed lack verifiable reception information on their subjects.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mace Windu; seemingly notable because the character was portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson. There are worse reasons but his is a comparatively minor character in terms of plot line. Hardly Dooku. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per MASEM. That Christopher Lee, however tall of a Titan he may be, is a major draw is a non-argument, IMO. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 19:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Star Wars characters is a bloated mess. Per WP:SIZE, it is far too large at 146K and it has multiple issues. We would be making matters worse by merging more content into a page that needs splitting. There is no sense in this proposal. Andrew (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be split into those appearing only (or almost exclusively) in the prequel trilogy and those appearing only (or almost exclusively) in the sequel; ditto for the Expanded Universe. I don't see how that's relevant to a deletion discussion, as details can be worked out after it, merger or no. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 20:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character is without a doubt notable, but the article likely is poorly developed and without sufficient referencing because so much reader and editor attention goes to the Star Wars wikis that are more informative and detailed.--ɱ (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:clearly notable is not a valid reason for a keep !vote. It still needs reliable sources. Nathan121212 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, a subject must be notable on its own, rather than only because it is related to someone or something notable. That being said, I think the problem here is a lack of sources proving its notability and therefore should be kept, but edited to include many more reliable sources other than a related Wiki. Abroham1024 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dooku is in a NY Times article (even one paragraph is notable) and an important character in multiple films.Frmorrison (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources are available, but requires weeding them out of the thousands of non-reliable web sources and/or having access to the various books already listed in the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's tough to deny that our coverage of Star Wars is extensive, some might say overly so even compared to other pop-culture topics. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing, these films get plenty of reliable source coverage, and this was a major character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I can find is WP:TRIVCOV and mentioned only because it is an article on Christopher Lee. We need WP:RS. Nathan121212 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Notability is not inherited. Both the series and the actor are quite notable, and there may be sources about either of those where this character is mentioned in some minor fashion. That is not enough to satisfy independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it applies undue weight to those trivial mentions of the character. It needs true, real world coverage of the impact that the character has had on the series and popular culture rather than scrounging up the dregs of the internet just to satisfy the idea that because it is a Star Wars character that it must be notable. TTN (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above keepers. BOZ (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: some of the above keeps have been pointed out by me as possibly invalid per WP:clearly notable and WP:TRIVCOV. I hope you aren't keep voting this just becuase they are as WP:MAJORITY is not a valid argument. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:52, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eskeri[edit]

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

This article is a stub and has no references and does not describe the topic clearly. Gamemaster eleven (talk)

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

Relisting comment: AfD was improperly formatted and never listed. Fixed now.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 05:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was created in 2007 with an external link from Encyclopedia Mythica which, however, was blacklisted as a source for Wikipedia in 2010, at which point the link was removed. I can find just one earlier source, the Encyclopedia of Russian and Slavic Myth and Legend, published in 1998. The information given there is one sentence, just different enough to argue that this article is acceptable paraphrase rather than copyright violation. PWilkinson (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 14:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per PWilkinson. I too searched, only reference I found was Wilkinson's. I realize there needs to be several independent sources, but in this case, given the article is only two lines long, contains essentially one fact based on one reliable source, with no copyright issues as Wilkinson said, and does not seem amenable to POV or spam issues, and could be a useful tidbit of information for people studying creation myths, or the Turgus peoples of eastern Siberia, I say let's keep it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:30, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Star XL[edit]

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

Insufficient significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability of the subject. Agyle (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some independent sources to consider (none have full open online access):

Dickson, Glen (1997-03-24). "Weather Channel intros Weather Star XL; headend equipment will upgrade local forecasts, allow for real-time 3-D animation. (satellite receiver/graphic workstation unit)". Broadcasting & Cable.

Broadcasting & Cable, Volume 127, Issues 41-52. Cahners Publishing Company. 1997. p. 71. Last March, The Weather Channel introduced a new headend unit, Weather Star XL that is an integrated satellite receiver and graphic workstation that allows for real-time, 3-D animation during local forecasts. The addressable box in Weather Star XL gives operators the ability to show the local forecast in the lower one-third of the TV screen while still broadcasting national weather reports live. The enhancements are another way to offer viewers a ...

Meister, Mark (2001). "Meteorology and the rhetoric of nature's cultural display". Quarterly Journal of Speech. 87 (4): 415–428. doi:10.1080/00335630109384349. ISSN 0033-5630. Although the atmosphere of the earth primarily 'moves' because of pressure gradients, TWC technology makes witnessing these movements possible. In 1997, TWC introduced 'Weather Star XL' to its viewers. This 'satellite receiver/graphic workstation' generates real-time 3-D animation which allows TWC the capacity to instantly upgrade national and local forecasts (Burgi, 1995b). (Don't have full access to article.)

Burgi, Michael (1995-06-19). "Weathering Heights". MediaWeek. Vol. 5, no. 25. p. 16. (Presumably the article referenced above).

América economía – Volumes 161-173 (in Spanish). s.n. 1999. TWC ha llevado "un paso más allá" su tecnología Weather Star XL, que le permite ofrecer pronósticos locales diferenciados por país dentro de una misma señal satelital, dice Wendy Ka-..." Translation: "TWC has taken 'a step further' Weather Star XL technology, allowing it to offer local forecasts differentiated by country within a satellite signal, says Wendy Ka-...

RNT, Issues 221-228 (in Portuguese). Telepress Assessoria de Comunicações. 1998. p. 96. A Max Films é responsável pela distribuição da versão brasileira do Weather Channel. Criado em Atlanta há 15 anos, o TWC/Canal do Tempo distribui sua programação para 99% das operadoras norte-americanas e tem mais de 85 milhões de assinantes no mundo. O canal utiliza o sistema The Weather Star XL (Satellite Transponder Addressable Receiver). O sistema exclusivo, desenvolvido em conjunto com a Canal do Tempo fechou ..." Translation: "The Max Films is responsible for the distribution of the Brazilian version of the Weather Channel. Created in Atlanta for 15 years, the TWC / Weather Channel distributes its programming to 99% of U.S. carriers and has over 85 million subscribers worldwide. The channel uses The Weather Star XL (Satellite Transponder Addressable Receiver) system. The unique system, developed in conjunction with the Weather Channel closed ...

--Agyle (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I'm not expressing any opinion as to whether the action was right or wrong but Agyle has recently more than halved the length of the article, at least that's by my calculation. Additionally another user had previously suggested a merge to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeatherStar . It might be good to let the merge proposal be considered and to give other editors time to respond to the deletions. Gregkaye (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted material while assessing the sources cited, and it did not contain reliable sources. However, a pre-deletion version is here, and any version can be considered; the subject's notability is unrelated to the article's content.

The merge proposal, dealing with a group of articles, was made in response to AfD nominations that were themselves going on concurrently. Perhaps you're right about awaiting an outcome of the merge proposal, but they can take months to resolve, and merging is an option here for people who disagree with keeping or deleting the article. Agyle (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Agyle - I put up the merge proposal long before most of the AfDs were created. The only article that was proposed for deletion at the time was Weather Star 4000. MikeM2011 (talk) 17:02, 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 05:23, 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 ♔ 14:36, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Letham[edit]

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

Created by a verified sock noted for hoaxes, this might not be one, as there are two obituaries which appear to reliably verify his existence. I'm not sure that that rises, however, to notability, and is it completely insane that I'm starting to wonder about the obits? Perhaps. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 and WP:EVADE. The other editors of the article have not added substantial content.- MrX 19:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be correct. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not too solid on this one to make a firm judgment at the moment, but his IMDb page shows that he has a decent filmography about him in terms of numbers. The most important role I'm seeing, however, is on the short-lived Atletico Partick. But he is a real guy with some real roles. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm slightly more convinced by [29] that he exists than by IMDB, I've at least one memorable hoax unmasking where content had gotten introduced into IMDB. (That one was funnier.) In any case, yes, I think that an actor by that name exists. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - IMDB is not considered to be a reliable source as it comprises information which is user submitted. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Precisely: WP:RS/IMDB. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a hoax per this, this and this. I'm not going to add the refs until the block/evade issue is resolved but I don't think that it qualifies under G5 as the page was created on March 7 while AFAICT the block occurred later. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure I agree as a matter of textual interpretation, G5 refers to blocked users, not blocked accounts, and many of this user's socks, which have been confirmed by CU, have been indef blocked for 3+ years. However, there may be a precedent on this point that I am unaware of. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment' I have temporarily pulled the G5 tag while we turn to notability, etc. I do agree that some of the material is true, as I've stated above, IMDB didn't convince me, but I doubt the Mirror report is fabricated. --j⚛e decker^talk 06:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Good call. I'm not sure how the sock issue will turn out but I'm going to collect some more references if I can find them and see whether notability can be established. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ without prejudice to the block/sock issue I believe Letham ~~probably~~ passes individual/actor notability based on the existing article reference to The Scotsman and the following:
"Obituary: Ronnie Letham". Herald Scotland. 9 May 2008. Retrieved 21 June 2014.

Reliable source, 330 word obituary.

"Letham, Ronnie, 1949-2008, actor and student at Jordanhill College of Education, Glasgow". University of Strathclyde Archives. Retrieved 21 June 2014.

Reliable source, 81 word vignette.

"Theatre: A hotel from Hell: Richard Loup-Nolan on new productions in Glasgow and Edinburgh". The Independent. 18 May 1994. Retrieved 21 June 2014.

Reliable source, passing mention in theatre review.

There are also multiple mentions of him in a Google Book search as a cast member, while News has seven mentions.

In summary, three strong references and, per actor notability guideline, confirmation of significant roles in multiple notable television shows and stage performances. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:52, 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 04:06, 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, czar ♔ 14:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about meets WP:GNG: there's the articles in the Scotsman and Herald plus other shorter mentions. Google Books throws up several sources in snippet view, including a Spectator review of a play he directed, Joyce McMillan's book about the Traverse Theatre, and several other critical notices. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 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 03:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Breach (book)[edit]

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

I could not establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - I can only find scant coverage on this book. This article via Highbeam simply lists it as a recent paperback release as part of a list with no critical commentary. The best source I could find is this article via Highbeam which is a capsule review. 3 small paragraphs does not rise to the level of significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 3 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 13:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - According to this a film is planned based on the book, so it may satisfy criteria 3 of WP:BKCRIT in the future. For now, the lack of independent sources suggests deletion per WP:TOOSOON.- Mr X 14:48, 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. Secret ^account 19:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easy tyre and autocentres[edit]

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

Local tyre repair centre. There are passing mentions in local news sources, and in a few industry reports, but nothing really that demonstrates it meets WP:NCORP. I've had a good look around for sources, but I can't really find there's enough to meet the required level. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unremarkable busines, no substantial sources.TheLongTone (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an ad; not notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Most of the sources make no mentions of the topic itself (besides the ones associated with the topic), so it seems not very notable. Piguy101 (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advert and a long way from it --TerraceGent (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are still adding to this page and developing the content under guidance from other users. Please note that this brand is actually owned by Goodyear Dunlop one of the largest brands in the tyre industry in the world. We would appreciate feedback rather than just people saying delete. TerraceGent — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerraceGent (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there seems to be no sustantial independant coverage of this organisation.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, we are collecting the independent coverage and putting it into the sources from the trade press and local news websites. --TerraceGent (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Robinson (wrestler)[edit]

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

Single-sentence remains of spam removal. Laun chba ller 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the stub. Robinson competed at the 1972 Summer Olympics thus passing WP:NSPORTS. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the olympics.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. Competed in the 1972 Summer Olympics. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games" Subject passes WP:NOLYMPICS and, therefore, WP:NOTABILITY per [30]--Jersey92 (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No brainer since he competed in the Olympics.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Former Olympian (1972). Carrite (talk) 18:03, 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) 01:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Chicken[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This breed of chicken seems not to exist. A Google search brings up no results, other than the one article already cited. The Article was created by user:Kangwira, who uploaded the only image on the page, describing its source as 'my farm'. This image is taken from the sourced website.

Because there are no other sources than the website of the main author, this would lead me to believe it contravenes (WP:RS), (WP:N) and (WP:V) Sotakeit (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ID:Ayam Ketawa (won't let me wikilink to Indonesian language wiki here for some reason?) Same species of chicken, the Indonesian language article is much more comprehensive if anyone can translate properly. I only have google translate to go by for now. JTdale ^Talk 16:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum Tracked down some english language articles. 1, 2, 3. They are also reported to DAD-IS by Indonesia under the name 'Gaga. 4 JTdale ^Talk 16:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly sure that this breed exists, at the very least for competitions. Kompas (one of Indonesia's largest newspapers) has 346 GHits with the key words "Ayam Ketawa". I'll not pass judgement on if this subject is notable yet, but I'm tempted to say it probably is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:Keep - on the basis of User:Crisco 1492 whose knowledge of Indonesia I trust. If the breed has a consistent local name, it probably is worthy of coverage. The lack of reliable sources in English might mean the article would have to refer to sources in Bahasa Indonesia. Shyamal (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: it is possible that the more common name is Ayam Gaga' - according to http://www.ijpaes.com/admin/php/uploads/413_pdf.pdf - unfortunately a journal that would not pass muster in Beall's list - but it has some useful references listed. http://peternakanjunaedi.blogspot.in/2013/04/kajian-bioakustik-tipe-suara-ayam-gaga.html Shyamal (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with what little I found find. I did manage to track down several of its names via various reference (which seem to indicate the names vary because of Indonesian vs Buginese languages). I know the journal is not the best, but it is written by a professor from Hasanuddin University so I'll take what we have. JTdale ^Talk 06:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This breed does exist. The editors above provide the citations needed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Once this debate is closed, maybe discuss if the English name is known enough to be the title, or if it's a translation and the article should be moved to be Ayam Gaga. But that's a differnt debate. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:05, 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VirusTotal[edit]

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

advertising with a suspicion of a copyright violation from this page The Banner talk 13:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because it's an old article and I just updated it and I don't know why the user have now a problem with an updated content. I'm not an advertiser! Tobias B. Besemer (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roll back to an older, less-detailed version. This version from 03:44, 13 April 2011‎ is the last version before some copyrighted material was added. This version from 22:02, 31 December 2012 is the next visible version. It shows the list of engines used. I prefer the 2011 version over both the 2012 version and the current version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I'm seeing reviews in Softpedia^[1]^[2] and PC Advisor.^[3] There's also new coverage on the company itself that can be used to flesh out the article from PC World^[4] and Betanews.^[5] Given the software's presence in the PC World 100 Best Products of 2007 (link updated in article) and the citations already in the article, I think there's enough here to argue successfully for notability. I haven't looked into the copyright issue, but that's not a problem to be solved at AfD. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Ilascu, Ionut (September 30, 2010). "Scan Files with Over 40 AntiVirus Engines For Free". Softpedia.
^ Ilascu, Ionut (May 17, 2013). "PhrozenSoft's Uploader Sends Files to VirusTotal Service in Batches". Softpedia.
^ "VirusTotal Uploader review". PC Advisor. February 23, 2010.
^ Newman, Jared (September 8, 2012). "Google buys browser-based malware scanner VirusTotal". PC World.
^ WIlliams, Mike (February 5, 2014). "VirusTotal adds AegisLab as a file scanning engine". Betanews.

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Mercantile Exchange[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 11:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is unreferenced and completely promotional. Looking at the version at creation, it would appear to have always been promotional. The official website is now dead, but it appears they are now at www.afmx.co which oddly, seems to be a copy of the Wikipedia article, complete with links back into wikipedia. The only coverage I can find is a small mention in this article. This falls short of what we need to write an article about this company instead of the current advertising. Fails notability for companies. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even assuming the facts are true, I can't see that this is a commodity exchange in the western definition of the term. It appears to be a ten-year-old market, but one so small, albeit somewhat diversified, as to be more more of an up and coming operation than what a reasonable reader would understand by the usual term. I'm willing to change my mind if someone could find sources to prove otherwise. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 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 Speedy Deleted - G7/G3 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Movie 6(Flim)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Also a probable hoax, considering there seems to be no coverage whatsoever by reliable sources. Needless to say, article fails WP:NFILM (if it's a film at all, and not just make-believe), and is horribly formatted and written. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Tagged as such. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, CSD definitely applies here. Bad decision on my part to nominate for AfD rather than CSD, apologies Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as clearly a hoax. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. Nonexistent. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 23:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Isle Community Singers[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. google just reveals one line mentions, and a number of books repeat the identical one line mention "Local choirs, like the long-established Emerald Isle Community Singers, mix calypso with traditional folk songs and spirituals in their repertoire" LibStar (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 1 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, czar ♔ 03:53, 8 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 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:20, 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. Secret ^account 19:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive punk[edit]

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

Progressive rock and punk rock are as distanced as any music genres ever could be. Both have entirely opposite musical agendas (complexity vs simplicity, virtuosity vs. unskillfulness, structure vs. expressive freedom) which is why a fusion is impossible by definition. This is not surprising, seeing that punk rock was created as a reaction to progressive rock. Considering this, the genre of "progressive punk" is as ridiculous a genre as dance-metal, glam-grunge and experimental pop. Certainly, artists can be influenced by elements from both punk and prog but they do not represent a fusion of the genre.

If progressive punk is a legitimate genre, I would like its proponents to provide an explanation of how the liberalism, low production values and simplicity of punk can be combined with the virtuosity, conservatism, high production values and complexity of prog without compromising the elements that define both genres.

If progressive punk is a legitimate genre, it must have figureheads. Can any proponents of the genre's legitimacy provide examples of artists who carry all of the musical traits expected from progressive punk? Instead of merely having punk rock artists influenced by progressive rock or progressive rock artists influenced by punk rock, the artists themselves must possess a fusion so intimate that they can neither be called pure prog or pure punk.

Artists may choose to adopt instrumental techniques and compositional practices used by both punk rockers as well as prog rockers, but if progressive punk is a legitimate genre, its proponents must demonstrate that the artists actually represent a fusion of the genre and not just stand as experimental rock, math rock, post-punk, art punk or others.

If this genre can't explain itself, it has to be deleted. Krunchyman (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe even speedy keep because the nominator doesn't state a valid ground for deletion: while it's a tenable theoretical argument, Wikipedia goes by the sources, not by the opinions of various editors. On the merits, while the current article doesn't have much content, "progressive punk" has been been discussed by reliable sources as a sound and used to describe major bands like Black Flag, Mission of Burma, Meat Puppets, Husker Du and Minutemen [31][32][33], Henry Rollins [34], PiL [35], and more. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism. The neologism emerged after all the bands named by Arxiloxos had broken up; it's a trendy rock journalism term, not a legitimate genre or musical movement. Suitable for an Urban Dictionary listing ("pronk") but not much more. (It's incidentally obvious that the term doesn't have much descriptive utility if Black Flag and Mission of Burma can be lumped together in this putative sub-genre...) —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (neutral for now). I'd like to point out that it is not necessarily relevant to AfD whether a topic is a "legitimate genre" or musical movement, only that it is a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article: in other words, whether it meets WP:GNG. The "legitimacy" of a genre is subjective: we have an article on indie rock, which many have argued is not a "real genre", but many also argue that brutal death metal is a "real genre" but currently that only redirects to death metal. Being an apparent oxymoron is also a red herring. — Gwalla | Talk 20:03, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be an idea to redirect to Post-punk defined as "an artsier and more experimental form of punk", which would include many of the 1970s/1980s bands cited (as to a lesser extent might other genres like New wave music, Hardcore punk, and Post-hardcore). More recent bands like Fucked Up don't fit in that classification, admittedly. But regardless of whether it's a separate genre, there's not enough sources to establish notability. If other people have opinions on redirect or even merge, that might be a productive area, but I'm not convinced any of the articles I mentioned are close enough to redirect without explanation. - Colapeninsula (talk) 15:10, 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. Secret ^account 19:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kambiz Alavian[edit]

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

Vanity article, no indication of notability. Even google search doesn't offers any significant result for subject to be included as an encyclopedic subject. Ireneshih (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the contrary, Google Scholar search suggests he is a well known neuroscientist with a significant amount of papers, among which he and his co-workers found that "..Bcl-xL regulates metabolic efficiency of neurons through interaction with the mitochondrial F1FO ATP synthase", as stated in the article. --BiH (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WoS h-index of 10 in a very highly cited field. Will likely be notable in future, but WP:TOOSOON for now. Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. [36] Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The young researcher award is not enough, and (per Xxanthippe) the academic impact he has demonstrated through citations to his work is also not yet enough. What else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 23:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ján Husár[edit]

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

An article based on unreliable sources, mostly forums, blogs, and IMDB. The subject of the article doesn't seem to be notable enough. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Λeternus ^(talk) 07:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:12, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:12, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I Can Say[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage of this album is not sufficient to pass GNG and it really does not pass WP:NALBUMS even with that one lone review of the album at Cross Rhythms. HotHat (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indi release from a notable band before they made it big. Not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For notable artists, I'd rather have more album articles, not fewer, despite what the guidelines say. Fru1tbat (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprisingly, the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music does not included David Crowder, though it was published right on the cusp of their signed debut, so when Powell wrote the book there would have been nothing in print anywhere on the burgeoning group. However, I did find the following sources, all of which I think provide enough discussion of the album to make it start class: 2 Cross Rhythm sources, an interview and the "lone review"; an artist write-up on Billboard that briefly discusses the album and how it contributed to the band's popularity; a mention in a biographical piece on Christian radio station The Fish; and some discussion of the album in Atlanta.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage is not substantial in any of the cases and the review is the only exception. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 24 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:11, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:11, 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. Secret ^account 19:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ichitarō Ai[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this voice actor under WP:GNG. Additional sources welcomed. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 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, czar ♔ 04:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is supported only by the subject's blog page and a profile on ANN, so notability has not been established at this point. --DAJF (talk) 07:06, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT sources used are also not enough. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soulstice[edit]

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

lack of substantial RS fails GNG. 1 passing mention and 2 primary. Widefox; talk 13:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage to merit inclusion: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. See WP:BEFORE. --Michig (talk) 06:12, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Michig. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:MUSBIO per the sources listed above by User:Michig. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 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. While more participation would have been ideal, closing this as keep per the short discussion herein. Due to stated limited participation, and the one "weak keep" !vote, this close is a rather "weak keep" one. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Water Efficiency[edit]

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

delete and cluebat AfC reviewer As created, contained a copyvio (a sentence ripped verbatim from the article subject's 'about me' page, which I deleted). What there is here is a bad synthesis of primary sources, such as sourcing that one of their activities is research to a grant award and a press release about an educational program. The sources given are all 'examples', not significant coverage. After scrolling through the first ten pages or so of Google results, I can't find anything about them that isn't from some other organization they are affiliated with. While they are obviously a 'reputable' industry group there's nothing to base any kind of a real article on, and what remains is just 'this not-notable organization exists'. Revent^talk 05:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The sources are not so great, but I think these sort of pass as WP:RS giving us a WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:36, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tony. We tend to give public benefit corporations more leeway in primary sourcing. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 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. Secret ^account 19:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mylene Fernández-Pintado[edit]

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

Only source to date is a passing mention in an article about a booksellers convention, hardly enough for notability. She has written books, that much is evident. Only discussion of her I could find is the already mentioned reference. No reference vetting the listed awards, which are of doubtful importance anyway. John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prima facie author notability failure. No confirmation found of these "awards" and no other significant coverage found in reliable sources. Passing mention in the Huffington Post per existing ref but nothing else. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cant find any evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:34, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rag & bone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rag & bone

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

Non-notable subject. Popcornduff (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable and passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:35, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:01, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geodynamics Research International Bulletin (GRIB)[edit]

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

Non-notable journal Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost a speedy. no assertion of notability. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Hasn't been around long enough to have an impact factor. No controversy or other claims to notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:05, 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 19:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Leicester Students' Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG. there is no inherent notability of student unions. last AfD was 6 years ago. the only third party coverage I found related to event listings held by the union. the article contains mainly info that is of little interest to someone from outside the university. although I think the University of Leicester Boat Club may have some notability, but should be covered in Leicester Rowing Club LibStar (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. There is nothing notable about this organization. Tchaliburton (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Universities-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to University of Leicester. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, including failing GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 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 keep. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 02:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Edgerly[edit]

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

Notability not shown via WP:SECONDARY sources giving in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability provided in the article, and I wasn't able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Lots of unreliable blog, social media and user submitted coverage, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actor and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER for having notable roles in notable works, such as playing Benny, one of the two main characters, in Top Cat: The Movie. Dream Focus 02:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG trumps entertainer. The sources provided do not show a passing of GNG. I think we need to be cautious to assume that notability will come as quickly to voice actors as to live actors. I know some will find this unfair, but the truth is that in general voice actors just don't get as much coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found some interviews that might be helpful. See here and here. I also found an article on Highbeam, but I'm not quite sure it's him. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:41, 1 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, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 15:07, 1 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes point #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 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. Davewild (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Martini[edit]

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

As a politician, she fails WP:NPOL. No other indication of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor party candidates for office do not become notable for being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable candidate for office. Tiller54 (talk) 17:14, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents at Minnesota Park[edit]

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

I believe this park, incident article was created by accident. If the park/incident is proven to exist, then the content should be moved to Incidents_at_independent_amusement_parks, with page deletion for this page included. SpikeJones (talk) 04:05, 8 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 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Accident my foot. This is an absolute abject hoax. Google and Bing searches reveal no such park and no such ride; the only thing both engines pull is this article and the "image" purporting to be of the newspaper article. Cited source for article fails WP:RS. Considering the media coverage over the last 12 hours for a non-lethal accident at Six Flags Magic Mountain, a lethal accident would have gotten far more coverage (although there's a relative lack of coverage of the fatal incident at Terra Mitica yesterday, at least here in North America). --McDoob AU93 13:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Act of God or a generic accident (e.g., slipping and falling) that is not a direct result of an action on anybody's part..... I think I've just lost faith in humanity!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Act of God is a common legal term and fits within these articles. --McDoob AU93 14:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 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. None of the keep votes attempt to show that the church passes WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 02:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatfield Christian Church[edit]

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

The article is a WP:Vanispamcruftisment about a non-notable subject. The only sources are published by the church itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Its a church that does church stuff. I'm sure it does it very well. They have their own website to prove it. lots of their own at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgzP8GouhBs but nothing very watched. They have inter organisation evangelisation connections http://www.imd.co.za/site/get-involved/what-volunteer-opportunities-are-currently-available/ No added worth in the Wikipedia page yet it got 400 hits last month. Gregkaye (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or WP:TNT Evidence in the article is that this is a megachurch over 100 years old in an area not well covered in the encyclopedia, and probably represents a medium size denomination. There is also a WP:TNT argument. Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs I read it, until at least 1963 it was a "run-of-the-mill" congregation in the mainstream Baptist denomination, at some unspecified point after that it joined the much smaller IFCC. But this is all beside the point that without any independent reliable sources it is simply not notable. One might expect a church of that size to feature in at least local newspapers occasionally but I've found nothing usable - so that's why I nominated it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:27, 24 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) 01:08, 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 ♔ 03:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- An active church with a lot of members. I expect that they have a significnat profile locally, particularly in the light of the number of satellite ministries. I am not sure that 6000 members makes this a mega-church, but that kind of membership is certainly significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any news sources about this church online, zero. Willing to change my mind if somebody can rescue this. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: What do you think of what is at Google books? Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first 5 pages of hits at Google books all seem to be good hits. Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hatfield Baptist Church is an alternate search term with hits on Google books. Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google scholar has 40 hits, FYI. Unscintillating (talk) 01:38, 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harriadnie Beau[edit]

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

"not notable & self written article"[51] --- Completing a malformed AfD nomination for Bobbymills7777 (talk · contribs) --- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brand ambassador isn't a real thing. Lacks notoriety. No proper citations. Appears to be self-written. WP:BIO. sig1068 — Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree article in past shape was substandard, but references are there in the mishmash of the fashion world (took some digging), with numerous articles talking about her in depth to meet the substantial coverage requirement, independent sources, meets GNG and model.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:05, 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 01:14, 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 ♔ 03:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be compulsory to add pictures to fashion model articles. It helps (me) to make up my mind about their notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:01, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon and Herdsman[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 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, czar ♔ 03:43, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elayne Angel[edit]

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

Article's subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:ARTIST. No evidence of receiving any significant awards, having been the subject of non-trivial news coverage, or having been discussed in published work outside of the piercing community. Notability cannot be inherited from former husband Buck Angel. KDS4444^Talk 12:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:34, 1 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, czar ♔ 03:43, 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. Davewild (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar pages[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating for deletion, as the old AfD received no comments. Same rationale as before, and again, if someone finds a source I missed, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:37, 1 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, czar ♔ 03:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any coverage on it from a quick search. JTdale ^Talk 17:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) using "Lunarpages" as a better search term turn up some passing mentions but nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:21, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mozid Mahmud[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

the poet has no notability. there are many unimportant references in the article. the awards shown here is not mentionable.--Junipandit (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the nomination. Ansh666 08:15, 30 June 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 June 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Bengali-language writer who is notable in Bengal. It would be onerous to require foreign sources (eg. United States, Japanese or Russian). Rather, multiple reliable Bengali-language sources cover this Bengal topic.

অভিনয়ে কবি মজিদ মাহমুদ, Dainik Destiny (Bengali newspaper)
"Poet Mahjid Mahmud" (Google translate), Bengala News 24 (Bengali news outlet)
মজিদ মাহমুদ (Google translate), BD News (Bengali news outlet)
মাছরাঙ্গার আয়োজনে কবি মজিদ মাহমুদ 2, TV discussion about Mahmud, and subsequent interview
অভিনয়ে কবি মজিদ মাহমুদ (Google translate), priyo.com (Bengali news outlet)
একটি সময়কালের মধ্যদিয়ে নিজেকে দেখেছি: মজিদ মাহমুদ (Google translate), BD Today 24 (Bengali news outlet)

I also found sources by Mozid Mahmud published in reliable sources (newspapers, journals), but did not include them here due to PRIMARY, but they add to the evidence he is someone known and published in Bengal. (this Keep vote is the same I made 7 months ago, my vote and reason are the same nothing has changed). -- GreenC 00:48, 8 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, czar ♔ 03:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources don't need to be in English. That's pretty much it. Oh look, this AFD is now a mirror of the last one - GreenC, re-list, me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:48, 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. Davewild (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Less Antman[edit]

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

Having run for Treasurer, and losing by a considerable margin puts him in the WP:NPOL category. Other work (e.g., a LewRockwell.com essay and some accounting works) does not put him into GNG status. – S. Rich (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found this ref [52], but being a friend of Andrew Tobias doesnt make you notable. his name may be prophetic: we may actually want less ant-man if the movie is bad:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mercurywoodrose. Not seeing enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one claim to notability in the article - the claim that his tally of votes when he ran for Treasurer was the most for any Libertarian and the reason for the party gaining ballot status - is not true. It is contradicted by the cited reference, which shows that another Libertarian candidate for another office in the same election got more total votes than he did. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being trounced in a race for state treasurer does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG fail.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our notability criteria. Jim Carter 08:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Antman is a frequently cited and published libertarian theorist, see Less Antman on C-Span, LewRockwell.com, and here. This article can and should be expanded, not deleted.--TM 14:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Having one convention speech recorded by C-SPAN does not make one notable. Neither does being published and cited in partisan blogs. Significant coverage in reliable outside sources is needed.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say that his electoral performance winning the CA LP ballot status should be included on the CA LP's page (if there is one) before he was deleted for failing WP:POLITICIAN, but that's not true anyway. So, he can just be deleted. Tiller54 (talk) 17:13, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German Broadcasting Company[edit]

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

A German station? The name (and abbreviation) is English. The website is in Serbia. The launch date is April Fool's day. I find no independent sources attesting to the station existing. The studio's article (created by the same editor) was deleted as a likely hoax. The article for a future film from the studio (created by the same editor) was deleted as a likely hoax. Mystery solved. SummerPhD (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As far as I can tell, the contents of this article are unverifiable. Searches for this specific term turn up a company from the Nazi period, not a TV station from 2014. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All GBC Channel or GBC brings up is the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation. The article links to and connects this 'channel' to Universum Studio GmbH Germany which was already deleted for similar reasons; AfD Universum Studo GmbH Germany. JTdale ^Talk 17:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete 'fantasy TV vandal' rubbish, and no, Sky Deutschland would not shut down their entire pay television operation to let one broadcast channel in a foreign language launch. Nate • (chatter) 03:20, 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geotab[edit]

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

WP:PROMO Only editors on page for months have only worked on this page, Previous AfC was denied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Geotab Paul Timmins (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears properly cited with reliable independent sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it was made by someone related to the company, the article seems well written and well sourced from independent sources. Also found these 1, 2, 3. JTdale ^Talk 17:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article does have neutrality issues and does read a bit like an add, it has enough industry, media and governmental sources to meet notability requirements. The listed problem can be solved through editing, so deletion is not necessary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:59, 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. Secret ^account 19:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BT-7 Thunderclap[edit]

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

Subject is non notable outside of the star wars universe ( WP:NOTABLE), and no sources are given. Benboy00 (talk) 16:18, 30 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) 17:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I doubt if it's even notable in the Star Wars universe. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, no evidence of notability in-universe, let alone outside of it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Star Wars starfighters. Regardless of "in-universe notability", with current information, this article will only EVER be a stub. LuigiToeness (talk) 23:16, 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 Star Wars Episode VII#Cast. Consensus found a lack of notability under the relevant guidelines, but no argument was made that would preclude a redirect that would generally be indicated by WP:ATD. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Clarke[edit]

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

per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. She was just cast in the film, which is currently shooting. Which does not make her notable. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can look at her as one of two winners of a competition held in two countries, 11 cities, 30,000 competitors in person, and 37,000 online; and she won[53]. A competition eagerly followed by many fans and journalists. I'm not asserting she's notable for what she might achieve. I'm asserting she's notable for what she has already achieved, even if she's cut from the movie tomorrow. Please don't compare her in the way you would an actress starring in a famous movie (which she hasn't yet). Instead, compare to somebody who's won something at comparable level of competition, and attention. --Rob (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. Winning a contest of that size does not make someone notable. Should every lottery winner be in Wikipedia? --Jersey92 (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A notable talent contest would be a better comparison. It's not comparable to a random drawing. --Rob (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the winner of a talent contest of that size would be notable simply as a result of winning it... that would make the winners of a large number of events in the USA notable and they are not... --Jersey92 (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to combine the number of people who came in person to be evaluated in two countries, multiple cities, with the enormous attention paid by the media to the process because of what it is for. I don't think there are a large number of competitions receiving as much attention as this, that we don't deem the winners of notable. Do you have some examples of talent competitions that I can find large numbers of stories in major national media all over the world, where the winners didn't qualify for an article? --Rob (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the unfortunate event that the closing consensus is not to have a stand-alone article, I ask that the article be redirected to Star Wars Episode VII so that any content and sources I (or others) add will be kept, and can more easily be used later when deemed more appropriate; and people searching for the name will find something relevant. --Rob (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTORS, she hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films (not yet), television shows, stage performances, or other productions or has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Doesn't mean the article can't be made later on when she has actually has had a chance of making a substantial career. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Wars Episode VII#Cast, as the subject does not pass any of the notability guidelines of this project. Being selected for a movie role is not even remotely in the ballpark of "winning a talent content", tht argument stretches all bounds of credulity. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear example of too soon. We do not know how big the role will be. There is a possibility that either the role or the film will not come about as planned. We create articles based on what has happened, not what we think will happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 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. Davewild (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency fractal[edit]

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

This article appears to be written in support of AjoChhand Machine which is also up for deletion as a suspected hoax. The term frequency fractal is referenced to Mandelbrot, one couldn't ask for a more impecable fractal related source. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure that Mandelbrot's book does not even mention this term (although it several years since I read it); it certainly does not appear in the contents of the book (accessible through Amazon on the Kindle version). The only source that actually uses this term is the Ghosh et al. paper, which is the claimed hoax. The rest of the extensive sources do not directly support this concept and the article is thus largely WP:OR. If it does not fail WP:HOAX it certainly fails WP:N. SpinningSpark 01:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Spinning Spark, User:Spinningspark please wait for a while, check it. Fractal is referred to Mandelbrot, not frequency fractal. it is a typo error, we wanted to refer Fractal not Frequency fractal, now corrected. Please make a google search, there is a plenty of Frequency Fractal, we thought to edit all articles in a few days, but amazing. I added a few references now, and to address your concern we have added some references, please wait for a while for the changes to take place.--MasaComp (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Spinning Spark, User:Spinningspark All corrected. I just found that your above argument is fundamentally wrong, I checked to find that there is a section where several references of frequency fractals in biology and in music. Therefore, your point that it is not notable is irrelevant and since it is notable it is not a hoax. The very reason of creating this discussion gets invalidated. Ghosh et al has added a single work "same looking" or "dissimilar looking". Thats just part of a very well known subject of research frequency fractal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasaComp (talk • contribs) 02:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for basically the same reasons as I suggested a delete in the AjoChhand Machine AfD: this is sourced to a single work that is new, largely uncited, essentially self-published, and mathematically incoherent. It is self-promoting buzzword bingo. It is not mathematics, and it is not encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll assume for the sake of argument that the concept behind the article is sound. The paper has far too few citations (by two orders of magnitude) and zero coverage in reliable sources, thus does not meet our notability guidelines. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. -- 101.117.108.115 (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no credible reference. Maproom (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to the arguments presented by David Eppstein, Lesser Cartographies, and Maproom, the lede of the article is not in good English, and the entire article raises competency issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research --Whpq (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR - an attempt to build an article out of various unconnected topics. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the phrase "frequency fractal" does not appear in Zentralblatt MATH, which strongly suggests that there is no independent reliable source discussing this concept. Deltahedron (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Benoit Mandelbrot did talk about how he observed fractal self-similarity in the pattern of periodic events at different time scales when he was diagnosing an electrical problem, this could be seen as a fractal frequency. However this article is just not demonstrated to me that it is a: sourced, b: not original research and c: not utter nonsense. Chillum 18:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One is supposed to find a notable topic first and then write an article about it. As far as I can see this is an article written with a made up title and they then try to find stuff to stick in it by googling the made up title. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Kendrick[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor "notable" only for a short film and some YouTube videos, sourced only to IMDb and YouTube without even the first shred of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that he gets past WP:NACTOR at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Waggers TALK 07:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivide[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, film has not begun principal photography at this point in time. — Cirt (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Writer:(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)

Per WP:INDAFD: Ivide

Delete at this time for its filming not confirmed to have begun. It has coverage in multiple reliable sources, but since filming has not begun, it fails WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Redirect for now to its notable director Shyamaprasad, where this topic may per policy be discussed.[54][55][56][57][58][59] Undelete and allow expansion after it begins filming. If article author wishes it userfied for improvements as filming approaches, I'd say yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:01, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Metivier[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no particularly strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR, sourced exclusively to primary and unreliable promotional sources, with not a single shred of real media coverage anywhere in the entire article. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can write a good and properly sourced article about him, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A total of 2 cites on GS, so not much attention has been paid to his work. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability requirements for an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 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 Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination per below and this. WP:NAC --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farshad Fotouhi[edit]

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

Fotouhi is notable only because of the following facts:

On December 12, 2012, the electrical engineering faculty voted no confidence in Fotouhi's leadership.
On December 20, 2012, Sorensen Gross Construction Services was hired to make Fotouhi's office larger and deluxe for US$142,772.79, according to a FOIA document that has been floating around Detroit's press club (a Wayne State University Purchase Order dated 12/20/2012.)
On June 1, 2013, Crain's Detroit Business published an article mentioning that Paul Strauss had stopped a donation in progress to the university because he was fed up with the way Fotouhi was blocking Auner's cancer detection research. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20130601/NEWS/306029984/researcher-greg-auner-goes-from-top-dog-to-doghouse-and-its-all
On February 7, 2014, James Woodyard, a tenured professor in the College of Engineering, resigned in protest of Fotouhi's actions. http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2014/02/11/wayne-state-defends-dean-who-sparked-professor-resignation#sthash.ooPyGNKU.dpbs The Detroit News article is not available on their archive website.
On May 15, 2014, Roy Wilson, the new university president, made things right for Auner by placing him under Valerie Parisi's chain of command so that Fotouhi can no longer interfere with Auner's cancer detection research. This was reported in Crain's Detroit Business: http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20140515/BLOG007/140519889/after-quiet-start-wsu-president-wilson-makes-waves

If I spit on your cupcake I should not call it frosting. Likewise, if I actively delete any mention of these well-sourced facts that clearly demonstrate [removed accusations per BLP], I should not then call it "neutral point of view." Without these facts, Fotouhi is just another non-notable university administrator and there is no reason for Wikipedia to have a page about him. Oater Films (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have redacted accusations of a personal nature against the article subject which have no place on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is a pointy nomination which is centered around issues of disputed content and sourcing and offers no legitimate policy grounds for deletion. Content issues should be worked out on the article talk page. In addition, I note the nominator's use of language which strongly suggests that they have an ax to grind against the article subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:09, 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. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 02:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Upper Middle School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable middle school. Jacona (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - In the old days, consensus was to almost always keep articles on Blue Ribbon Schools, and while I tend to be conservative on policies, I don't know that it's still the case today. This article has been around since 2006, and has survived a previous AfD discussion in 2010, albeit an AfD discussion which failed to establish consensus. The article definitely needs clean-up. Deletionists are a lot like code enforcement in my opinion, and one can interpret that in whatever way he pleases. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - I would like to add that I am not a fan of Jacona's blanket redirection of middle school articles based on a guideline, apparently with complete disregard for any previous discussion or actual article content, and his failure to actually merge any of the content into the articles which he redirects them to. I think his rationale is that most middle schools are not notable, so he's going to purge the encyclopedia of all MS articles. I could similarly say that most teenaged girls are not notable and purge the encyclopedia of all articles about any female between the ages of 13 and 18 (including celebrities), but that would be silly. I vote for speed reversion of all of his recent redirects. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 12:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate your concern. Certainly these articles fall into three groups. Those which are not notable, those which are, and those which are of uncertain notability. I have made an effort to remove those which are not notable, which is the vast majority of middle school articles, as can be seen by AfD discussions, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and other methods. I have made a few mistakes (I believe the number to be quite small), in which the redirect has been reverted. My thanks to the editors who have helped by reverting and my apologies for these mistakes. As to the third group, those of uncertain notability, this is the appropriate place to discuss them. Since there are thousands of "Blue Ribbon Schools", many of them self-nominated, I don't think that is ipso facto notability. And I believe that the "No Concensus" AfD discussion of 2010 is far more likely to result in deletion today, based on the outcomes of AfD's in the meantime. Thanks again for airing your differences, that is how progress is made! Jacona (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - It's always nice to see fellow Wikipedians not get mad when someone disagrees with them. :-) As for the blanket redirections, I agree with User:Balloonman, a former sysop who used to be very proactive in RfD. He was tough on anyone who showed interest in participating in the speedy deletion process, because he believed that sysops who would be too hasty in deletions would do great harm to the project, possibly more harm than good. By all means be bold, but in the future, I would suggest not redirecting articles unless you're sure that it's the right move; I would oppose further mass redirecting. After all, there is a reason why school articles are not eligible for speedy deletion. ;) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about making Wikipedia better, after all! While I may have been overly aggressive in redirecting some schools in New Jersey, I don't feel that this is one of them. "Blue Ribbon" schools run in the thousands and there is no further rationale for notability in this article. If one searches Wikipedia for middle schools, you will find that most US states have very few and often no middle school articles. I will definitely be more careful, I generally search for previous nrhp and for any significant coverage by reliable sources, but may miss previous AfD discussions. Jacona (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and Revert Redirects) Among articles for schools in New Jersey, where I'm more attuned to content, 32 articles were turned into redirects in the span of 37 minutes. Many of this knee-jerk removal of content was done with no analysis of potential notability nor any real check if the article was for a middle school, as articles for school districts, high schools and places on the National Register of Historic Places were all wiped out in this sweep of middle schools. With an average of 69 seconds spent on each article, assuming the whole time was spent on review, it's hard to imagine that anything was done to evaluate the articles. Based on Jacona's edits, the redirects created contain a statement that "This is a redirect from a school article that may have had very little information. The information from this article has probably been merged into an appropriate location or school district page." Unfortunately, many of these articles had significant amounts of information and the work of analyzing content and merging it into "into an appropriate location or school district page" was never done. Not once was there any merge of content, not for the schools in New Jersey nor for any of the hundreds of other such schools nationwide. Wikipedia:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay. That's it and nothing more. As the essay states, the "page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change". We have policies for a reason and consensus is a big part of that. We need to return to the status quo ante and do our job. No Wikipedia editor is granted the authority to disregard consensus and use an essay as a cudgel to turn hundreds of articles into redirects. Alansohn (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your opinions, Alonsohn! The verbage you refer to is the text of the template ((R from school)). Since you feel it is inadequate, perhaps you should help refine the template. Jacona (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and Revert Redirects). Seems notable. And perhaps it is time to revise the schools notability criteria, to allow development of more schools articles. Standards for what should be included should be set up though; a shorter article is appropriate here IMHO (but that is not for AFD). --do ncr am 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It wouldn't be deleted anyway per the long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. And in this case where arguably its Blue Ribbon status is a criterion for many Americans that their schools are notable enough for a Wikipedia article I will concur with those who wish to keep this article, although our rationales may differ somewhat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite its disparagers the Blue Ribbon is still the highest award for US schools, its award is generally accompanied by significant publicity, and I am not seeing the WP:BEFORE search for sources to test compliance with WP:ORG. Though most middle schools are considered nn, in this case the project will benefit more from allowing expansion and improvement rather than deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as middle/high schools are notable ~~& per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES~~. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says most middle schools are merged or redirected in AfD.

That'll teach me for pasting the same answer!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Blue Ribbon schools. 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.

In short, of the 4 articles I found, 2 were redirected, 1 was deleted, and 1 was kept -- not quite an endorsement that being a Blue Ribbon school per se is sufficient. Others are welcome to do their own search, and see what they find.

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) 21:58, 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Pharaoh[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unelected candidate in a future election, which doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. Article is sourced mainly to a mixture of primary and unreliable sources; while a couple of legitimate sources have been provided as well, there aren't enough of them to make a credible claim that he's established enough preexisting notability to get past a different inclusion rule instead. No prejudice against recreation if he wins the election in the fall, but he isn't entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. WWGB (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage provided appears to be incidental mentions, not "significant coverage". I was unable to find anything better, so subject fails GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We generally avoid articles on candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL and WP:GNG fail.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; yeah, not enough yet. If he wins - and he might - then he can have an article. Frickeg (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY at this point. If he is later elected it is still WP:TOOSOON now. In either case Delete for now. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re-create if he wins. Tiller54 (talk) 17:09, 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.