The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 01:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of current professional wrestling champions[edit]

List of current professional wrestling champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, original search HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is not notable. Champions in pro wrestling? Well, we should talk about ALL active championships in THE ENTIRE world in ALL promotions, BTW more than 100. With all mexicans, japanese and american titles, we're talking about 1000 titles. Second, original search. The author created a list with the current world champions in major promotions, deleted by other user because it's original search. the user put the promotions he thinks are major. Why not AJPW or WWC? Also, are ROH and NWA major promotions? Original search. Looks like the user tryed to create his own world heavyweight championship list. Also, unsourced. (PWI, a magazine is the only source) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck your "delete" as duplicative of your nomination, as formatting your subsequent comment in this way gives the false impression that another editor is separately supporting your nomination. postdlf (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, perhaps even speedy delete. We've had discussions like this in the past about List of professional wrestling world champions. Pro Wrestling isn't a competitive sport, at least not in the traditional sense, and has no oversight committees. Therefore, any backyard group can label their strap a world championship without being challenged. Other wrestling promotions may or may not recognize the title as being a world championship and wrestling media (such as Pro Wrestling Illustrated) may or may not recognize it, but there is no objective criteria. As an encyclopedia we have no authority on this matter. We cannot decide which championships are major or minor. However, if we were to list every championship from every promotion in existence then we would have a very unmanageable list on our hands. The best thing to do, and what we have agreed in the past, is to delete lists like this.LM2000 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a list of notable champions held by notable people from notable promotions. The inclusion criteria would clearly be notable promotions - IE they have an article here. Looking at the List of professional wrestling promotions, there aren't really that many current promotions. Unsourced? WP:SOFIXIT. It can't be that hard to source. By looking down the list, may of them seem to have sub-lists of champions by belt, which as Featured Lists in their own right. "Original search"? Haha, no. Unmanageable list? Wrong again. And that's not a valid rationale for deletion either. Basically the two deletion nominations smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but restrict to notable championships and wrestlers. This page is useful for navigation, it's a list of Wikipedia articles, and it seems to meet WP:L. Arguments for deletion are based on what might happen to this page (e.g. it might become unmanageable) but that isn't a valid reason for deletion. The notability of a topic isn't based on whether it's a fair championship (otherwise we wouldn't have articles like Russian presidential election, 2012) but whether reliable sources write about it. Those proposing deletion claim that this has been decided by past precedent, but it would be nice if they'd provide links to precedent, rather than just asserting it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Colapeninsula: - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 88#Again, What is a World Heavyweight Championship?. Secondly, to be frank, there are many small promotions out of the 90-100 that I have not heard of. They might borderline meet notability, maybe we can find five articles about them on the Internet, but that does not mean the reliable secondary sources report every single title change. I think you're overestimating the notability of the 300+ champions, a majority of whom don't have articles for the championships itself, I believe. starship.paint "YES!" 13:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Colapeninsula @Lugnuts About Original Search, it is when he said "major promotion" and "world championship". Project discussed and we haven't a definition about both therms, which are subjetive. About the number of promotions, with the templates about promotions in USA, Japán and Mexico, I count 79. Promotions like NWA or CMLL use a lot of titles, we're talking about near 300 titles. If you take a look on some independent promotions' articles, a lot of them aren't update. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean original research. I don't see any problem with this list. 79? Wow. Big numbers. Not unlike this list, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: - you pointed to List of current world boxing champions? That list has championships of five companies (one is a magazine though) with 17 weight classes, which theoretically equates to 85 champions listed. Earlier you pointed to active companies from the List of professional wrestling promotions, which I counted has 90-100 companies. Each company doesn't have one single title, but multiple. Usually one top singles title and one team title, optionally one or more secondary singles title, rarely one secondary team title, optionally one women's title. I'm not going to count the total number of champions but it's very likely we're looking at 300+ champions listed or even more. starship.paint "YES!" 10:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do most of those 300+ champions have articles (or are included in the promotion's article) on WP? Chances are they do, and therefore there are editors who'll be updating them individually to reflect who the current champion is. So having one master list can't be too much work, once the initial shell is setup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually don't think that most of the 300 champions have articles. Take a look at the Canadian companies. 6 companies. 1/5, 2/5, 0/3, 0/0, 0/5 and 0/5. Total of 23 champions, 3 have articles. Setup is one thing. Keeping it continually updated is another - also, this is a current list - if it is not updated - it becomes factually inaccurate. The Pro Wrestling Wikiproject is understaffed I'm afraid, I think it'll be very, very hard for us (blue editors) to keep up. We're going to rely on IPs to keep the article factually accurate? starship.paint "YES!" 13:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We rely on all articles to be kept factually accurate. I don't see how this is any different. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For any other article which is not updated, it's usually missing information that doesn't render the current information in the article inaccurate. For any list of current ..., if new champions are not stated it is simply wrong and misleading to say that 'this guy is the current champion'. starship.paint "YES!" 14:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the whole problem. The used divided the promotions between majors and...? Then, he divided the championships (world and seconday). However, he didn't put all the promotions, only promotions he wanted and he didn't put all titles (WWE Tag Team, Divas?). The article is a mess, is incompleted. Also, if somebody takes a look on some indy promoions, he'll see a lot of titles aren't updates. Does somebody want to try? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments First, there is something called "assume good faith". I get the impression that HHH Pedigree isn't a native English speaker. Second, the aforementioned discussion can be found in the archives of WT:PW. I'm on my phone as opposed to a real computer, which means that it's more trouble than it's worth to dig up the link. That discussion focused on what criteria makes a championship a "world" championship. Strangely enough, we appear to be applying it to this discussion, even though the list's title says "champions" rather than "world champions". Third, after reading the list, I agree that SOFIXIT is the best approach to take. That isn't necessarily a keep vote, however. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Wikipedia's seeming obsession with reflecting what's current may mirror the state of immediate-onset amnesia found just about everywhere else on the web, but it isn't entirely compatible with the goals of building an encyclopedia. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not a native-English speaker. I use (usually) simple sentences and TV catchphrases. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the discussions was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 88#Again, What is a World Heavyweight Championship?. I invoked it because we've got a similar list to what we saw at List of professional wrestling world champions and World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling) where, for some arbitrary reason, what some editor considers to be a major championship gets listed while others are not. At least the World Heavyweight Championship article made an attempt to list other world championships in some fashion (although it violated WP:NPOV if I remember correctly), this article lists seven and leaves it at that. Colapeninsula's argument would make sense if we could leave these seven companies were the only companies listed as that is easy enough to manage. But once you get 79 promotions, which pass the WP:GNG (rather important), each with many titles of their own, I think you're bound to have a mess of an article on your hands. There's probably a good reason why there isn't a general category for all wrestling championships without being divided into a number of subcategories (see Category:Professional wrestling championships). Splitting this into separate articles (list of professional wrestling midcard championships, list of professional wrestling womens championships, etc.) would be a better idea, but a flawed idea nonetheless, as we shot that idea down in the previous world heavyweight championship discussion.LM2000 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The idea of "champions" is confusing to me, in what might be respectable entertainment and a show of athleticism, but this is not on par with my normal association of "sports", where the winner isn't predetermined before the event. Let us be honest with ourselves here. It isn't about "fairness", it is about the reality of what the product is: as real as a soap opera. Fun to watch for many, but the ending was written days ago. To treat the list no different as baseball or football makes no sense and simply isn't a valid argument. To compare to fraudulent elections also makes no sense as the intent of some was to have a fair election. In wrestling, no participant is under the illusion they might win unless they were told so ahead of time. Treating as we do "any other sport" is the definition of "apples and oranges", they simply aren't the same. This would better be represented by a category if organization is needed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This would better be represented by a category if organization is needed.". Read WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if this ends up kept, let's see what happens to the article in three months. We'll see ... 1) If all promotions with an article on Wikipedia are included, or just an apparently random selection of promotions like now; 2) Will the categorization get better, world champions are definitely a subset of singles champions, why are they in different categories? Why is the IWGP Heavyweight Championship a world championship but the ROH World Television Championship or an Intercontinental Championship isn't a world championship? 3) Where do the women's titles go? starship.paint "YES!" 12:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Simply because of the ridiculous notion that this is original research. Feedback ^☎ 23:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for keep? Michael22 decided to put only 7 promotion and we list more than 100. He decided by his own and subjective criteria divided in major promotions (NWA is a major promotion?) and world titles (NWA title is a world title? ROH? We decided it in the project). That's original REsearch. This is another list about world champions, but this time, he didn't complete the job and he expects we care about the list. In a few months (if somebody decided to complete the list with +300 active titles) the list will be a mess, because nobody cares about titles from small promotions, like WxW or the endless NWA territories, or Titles from Puerto Rico. Even the author deleted the article from his own list "articles I've created". The doesn't care about the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based purely on notability, the topic is definitely notable. Your "nobody cares" argument is just as as flawed as your OR argument. If not 1 person cared, we wouldn't have the individual articles to begin with. The list requires cleanup and that includes adding more titles. But nothing here is original research. There is no original thoughts here. There is no made-up analysis to support a biased conclusion. There is nothing OR about this. Once this article is cleaned up and organized correctly, it could even become a FL. This article was nominated at AFD due to your misguided understanding of what WP:OR is about. Feedback ^☎ 18:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as I said, he decided to include some "major" promotions and "world " titles based in his own criteria. It is another try to create a list of world champions, which was deleted by the project.-HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of "nobody cares" would be List of Yukon Quest competitors. That list hasn't been updated in several years and also has a handful of lesser issues, yet remains an FL. I live a short distance from the Yukon Quest trail and many of my neighbors are dog mushers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm willing to take on yet another task. That may be the important factor here. The Yukon Quest happens only once a year. Title changes in professional wrestling happen a lot more often. If it came down to you and you alone to keep the list from becoming outdated, would you stick with it? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what RadioKAOS says, Feedback. Nobody has even bothered to improve the article while it is facing AfD despite its issues of sourcing, categorization or lack of inclusion of all notable promotions with an article on Wikipedia. Feedback, are you or any other keep voters willing to constantly keep tabs and source for on 90+ promotions to keep it factually accurate? starship.paint "YES!" 23:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete I went back and forth on this for a little bit. By and large, I find myself agreeing on one point with the nominator and I agree a lot with LM2000. I disagree that it's original research and think that assertion is preposterous, and in that regard agree with Feedback. So in the end, I have to say either reform this list in to a disam page linking to the respective promotions' championship lists or just do away with it. It doesn't have the same purpose as a list of Boxing champions or MMA champions would. Mainly because the varying degrees of credibility with fans and world wide recognition. It's an unnecessary page to maintain and keep up to date. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 05:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rearrange. Should be split either by company then by singles/team or by Singles/team and then not subdivided into world etc. Will require maintenance but tagging with categories will make that easier. SPACKlick (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Meir Katzenellenbogen#Some notable descendants. Because there is a lot of material there, I will leave as is while the editors please finish the merge/redirect themselves, soon. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of descendants of Meir Katzenellenbogen[edit]

List of descendants of Meir Katzenellenbogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per my understanding of WP:NLIST, stand-alone lists of people must consist of individually notable people, as well as listing a non-trivial attribute of the people listed. While the people listed here are easily notable, the problem is that there are easily hundreds of notable descendants of Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen of Padua. As demonstrated by The Unbroken Chain, this list's main source, practically every blue-blooded Ashkenazi Jewish family can trace its descent from the Katzenellenbogens.

(A possible alternative is a selective merge to Meir ben Isaac Katzenellenbogen; reducing the list to names alone, and including only the most famous descendants.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To the extent list is limited to notables. Subject is notable as entire book was dedicated to subject. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Brewcrewer: As an amateur rabbinical genealogist, I can assure you that there are hundreds of notable Katzenellenbogen descendants, and the page's creator's choice of members to list is rather arbitrary. The fact that there is one genealogical book—though considered outstanding in its field—devoted to the subject does not make the list non-trivial. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re hundreds, though not sure if they can all be sourced to merit inclusion. I'm not that worried about the list getting to unwieldy. We can deal with that when it happens via deletion or by breaking them up into sublists.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing? The Unbroken Chain is very thorough, and is an adequate source for most of my theoretical hundreds. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that is correct, who cares about size? Would you support deleting List of victims of Nazism, which should be far greater number than this list will ever be. If the subject is notable, and it appears you agree that it is as there is an entire book dedicated to the descendents, deletion is unwarranted. Don't worry about Wikipedia server capacity.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Merge and redirect per ISAK. Being a descendent of Katzenellenbogen is not, AFAIK, a career-significant attribute. Articles of this type should be restricted to very, very well-known (and covered, i.e. more than a single book) family trees, e.g. Descent from Genghis Khan, Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX, Kennedy family. For all others, ancestry.com is thataway ==> Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator will probably be first to agree there are numerous books (mostly in Hebrew) on genealogy relating to rabbis in the last few hundred years and books that specifically discuss the descendents of Meir Katzenellenbogen (especially in connection to hasidim). Nothing personal here but your position exemplifies Wikipedia:Systemic bias.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those numerous books demonstrate only the notability of general concepts in rabbinic genealogy, while a detailed listing of descendants over several hundred years and 15+ generations verges on WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which I think was Clarityfiends point. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "detailed listing of descendants over several hundred years and 15+ generations verges" and nobody is arguing there should be so WP:DIRECTORY is a strawman argument. As to your first point, do you not agree that there are other books besides Rothstein (not necessarily in English) that cover the subject of the descendents of Meir Katzenellenbogen?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list, as it stands, consists mostly of 20th– and 21st–century personalities, who are, as I wrote, approximately 15th generation descendants of Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen of Padua. You seem to have misunderstood my words due to my inadequate use of commas in rambling sentences. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Meir Katzenellenbogen#Some notable descendants section (I have just created that section there for that purpose) per nominator's second suggestion. Agree with User הסרפד (talk · contribs) that the "selection" of names here is too skimpy and essentially random because, following the logic of "Jews are connected", in between these few names there should/could/would also be tens of thousands of other notables over the centuries. The list here seems to be more of a "waving of the flag" verging on violating WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTMEMORIAL and not rooted in anything real. The references are disingenuous as one would have to search hard how they refer directly to Rabbi Meir Katzenellenbogen (1482-1565) himself. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Brewcrewer. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Meir Katzenellenbogen#Some notable descendants per IZAK and Clarityfiend. --Bejnar (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Doubel-Bi[edit]

Yu-Doubel-Bi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable musical group. Fails WP:BAND. - MrX 20:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly not notable. Possibly it could be deleted even without an AfD process. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "A new style called trollpop/buttoncore", huh? Googling for "Yu-Doubel-Bi" (don't forget the quotes or you'll get hits for every page with the name "Yu" in it) gives a whopping 9 results, which consists of this article, some pages on Soundcloud, a Twitter account, a story on a fanfiction site, a Wikipedia mirror, and an unidentifiable site that gives a "502 Bad Gateway" error when I try to connect. Just a group of high school kids messing around. — Gwalla | Talk 22:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Small indie band created by a group of friends, by far nothing significant past social media pages. Absolutely no substantial news sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:NOT. Confirmed search results described above. Wayne 06:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. No basis at all for notability, verification not great. --Bejnar (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments revolved around PROF C1 j⚛e decker^talk 17:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ulf-Daniel Ehlers[edit]

Ulf-Daniel Ehlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear notable per WP:ACADEMIC. All of the cited sources are simply links to the mentioned institutions or web material published by the subject of the article, none of which establish notability. Appears to be an autobiography. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. GS h-index of 17 [1] may just pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Nothing to suggest notability apart from instution. All passing mentions. Tezero (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is to be kept, somebody should re-write this article. At this point, it is way too promotional. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite the h-index of 17, influence doesn't seem to be there and there seems to be no real coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Nevill Green[edit]

Philip Nevill Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Written by PNG's assistant. Distinctly lacking in independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree poorly written before, but revamped. Notable executive who advised David Cameron on corporate responsibility. Sufficient sources meets GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails to have any significant coverage about the subject in third party sources. almost entirely passing mentions or generic listing in directories or affiliated sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a very bad article on a person who is clearly notable, because he had been CEO of a seriues of substantial public companies. The problem is that most of the worthwhile content is in footnote 2. Editing the article should provide soemthing worthwhile. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as it is now a stub article with sources establishing reliability. Independent references abound in the article, and TomWSulcer substantially revamped it. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has just been awarded the CBE in the 2014 Birthday Honours. In the past we have considered this to meet criterion #1 of WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Hartigan[edit]

Dylan Hartigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another child actor sourced only to an unreliable database. Declined the BLPPROD per Wikipedia_talk:BLPPROD#Expanding_BLPPROD_to_.22IMDB_only.22, but haven't found reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of him, so here we are. j⚛e decker^talk 20:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources or claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Especially with people who acted as children we require good sources. These roles are often fairly minor. We have no reliable source here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. insufficient coverage to establish notability, does not qualify under WP:ENT. --Bejnar (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Shires[edit]

Colton Shires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined BLPPROD despite Twitter and IMDB not being reliable sources, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would evidence the notability of this child actor. j⚛e decker^talk 20:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources or claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless someone can find coverage outside of ICBM or Twitter. This might well be possible, but should be done. Most of his roles are extremely minor. Since he is not yet 18, I think we should err on the side of caution and not create an article unless we have clear evidence of his being notable, which the current sources are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whatever other COI or SPA issues we have here, the consensus is that this is a BLP1E, perhaps a case of too soon but ultimately not suitable for inclusion at this time. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenie Carys de Silva[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Eugenie Carys de Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is not independent reporting on this subject as required by WP:BIO (the one most-cited source seems to be quoting press releases without editorial judgment being applied) and the editing of the article, which is about a minor, appears to be entirely WP:COI editing by an immediate family member of the article subject. There is no verifiability here, and no basis for notability. The article creator objected to a previous PROD. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to article creator I would like other editors to check whether the "newspaper" cited for most of the article content is doing anything other than accepting press releases as is for "reporting" on what is surely not a story accessible to staff reporters of that newspaper. Search the newspaper online archives (as I did just before this nomination) for the sources mentioned in the Wikipedia article, and note that the bylines of those source articles strongly suggest submission through a press release forwarding service, without the independent reporting required by WP:BIO. There is a BLP issue here (besides the very obvious WP:COI issue made plain by the article creator's response), and we always have to be especially careful about sourcing any BLP on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not only are there notability problems, there are child protection issues, as well as the fact that this article is pretty blatantly promotional. Wikipedia is not a place to put your CV. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Carrite, I think BLP1E, taken with the child protection issue is still enough to support deletion. If there are enough sources to meet the "multiple" prong of GNG, I would argue that this particular subject is as clear a case as I've ever seen for letting things develop more. Honestly, I really question the claim to notability anyway given we're talking about a graduate from a for-profit institution (that's my own intuition, rather than a particular source-based argument). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Mendaliv and nom. I am tempted to hat the WP:TLDR comment from Europa6 as disruptive. It contains much personal attack and not much in the way of valid argument. John from Idegon (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I had almost collapsed it myself. I'm just gonna do that. It's not helpful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are a couple of reliable sources that go into depth, but there also appear to be inconsistencies. She may well be heading for notability, but it is not quite there yet and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Userfying is an option here since it is also not unreasonable to think that she will become notable. On the other hand, the article was created by a WP:SPA account, which indicates it should not be userfied. I am One of Many (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I came here pissed at the content writer after seeing the report of their apparent legal threat at AN/I. I've calmed down now. This passes GNG based on sources showing in the footnotes. I think that one might argue for deletion based on BLP-1E (being a prodigy and graduating young). I'm not leaning that way though. Please look at the sourcing with clear eyes, don't opine delete just because of an epically bad AFD defense by the content writer. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the sourcing I nominated this article for deletion, after reviewing WP:BIO, because I noticed that the great majority of the sources in the article accept user-submitted content without any editorial activity. Wikipedia articles about living persons and statements about living persons in article text anywhere on Wikipedia are supposed to be based on reliable sources, that is sources to which editorial judgment has been applied. There is no indication that we have such sources here, and considerable indication ("articles" from obscure publications in other countries, not the country where the subject of the article lives) that what is really going on is family-submitted press releases turning into "sources" for a family-edited article. That isn't kosher by WP:SPA, WP:COI, WP:BLP, or WP:BIO. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carrite, I was going to vote to keep initially, but this case is very strange to say the least. Her degrees come from American Public University System, which is an online university. I'll say no more about that, but it does raise issues. The Huffington Post article in 2013 states she was accepted into a masters degree program at Harvard, but later retracted it. I think deletion is the best way to go rather than getting possibly hoaxed on this one. I am One of Many (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - this looks like WP:BLP1E off the back of a relatively obscure event ("youngest person to have graduated with a bachelor's degree in intelligence analysis"; every university subject in the world has such a person). Pacific Standard giving her a one-page profile in a "top thirty thinkers under thirty" article adds some weight, but it shades into being more of a WP:PRIMARYNEWS interview. --McGeddon (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Tilting that to delete, from the context given since, regarding significant omissions over the university being online and "Harvard" being the Extension School. The heavy reliance of sources on quotes from her and her father make them WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and we're left with minor press coverage of a WP:BLP1E. Perhaps she'll merit an encyclopedia article later, but not yet. --McGeddon (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see the other articles that have been listed below:

Local 8 News: http://www.local8now.com/home/headlines/15-year-old-Harrogate-teen-earns-Masters-degree-and-a-world-record-title-259888591.html

Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/30-top-thinkers-30-aspiring-defense-secretary-wants-change-intelligence-community-76792/

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/eugenie-de-silva_n_3744704.html

International Business Times: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/eugenie-de-silva_n_3744704.html

The Guardian - Sri Lanka: http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2014/04/sri-lankan-gets-double-masters-at-15_25.html

Te Interesa: http://www.teinteresa.es/increible/Eugenie-de-Silva-Harvard-Estados-Unidos_0_935308388.html

Sunday Times - Sri Lanka: http://www.sundaytimes.lk/130811/plus/harvard-here-comes-a-teen-prodigy-56871.html

United Press International: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/06/05/Prodigy-Eugenie-de-Silva-14-off-to-Harvard-for-a-masters-degree/UPI-10371370453673/

American Military University Frontline: http://www.amu.apus.edu/newsletter/archive/2013/08-2013-on-the-frontline.pdf

American Military University Frontline 2: http://www.amu.apus.edu/newsletter/archive/2012/08-2012-on-the-frontline.pdf

The girl is a student at Harvard University which was not retracted if one looks at the entire page. It seems that no one is actually reading this from an unbiased perspective. Please refer to the above-mentioned articles. AMU is an online university which was awarded the US News World Report Award for the best online Bachelor's degree program in 2014, so one's opinion of an online university should not weigh in the analysis of the evidence. This individual has also begun a Ph.D. at University of Leicester. These are facts that can be verified easily by those who may struggle to check the validity of provided references. All one has to do is make a simple call to the Presidents of the universities. If this a hoax, then major newspapers have fallen victim, is this not correct? If necessary, I can contact the individual and ask the individual to produce clear records. While we are discussing that, I will open a discussion for other prodigies to see how similar fact checking is applied. We must be unbiased in all situations. ----— Preceding unsigned comment added by Europa6 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 May 2014‎

• Comment As a simple Google search reveals, the subject of the article is in Harvard Extension School, which is open to the public with no application required.[2] I agree with WeijiBaikeBianji's points above. I think we need to be careful about this one. I am One of Many (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The author's first user name was "Virginiaresearchinstitute", an org founded by the subject's father, which is enough for a clear WP:COI, and based on edit history WP:SPA. The author has also attempted to make direct contact with another prodigy in order to discredit their inclusion on the List of child prodigies showing WP:OR (see edit on my user, not talk, page). When reviewing a couple of the WP:RS present I do not see supported claims, just loosely puffed and omitted word statements.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 19:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for mentioning the previous editor activities Yes, the activity of the same editor under the previous user name is what first put this issue on my radar screen. It is a legitimate point that the whole List of child prodigies article is basically a magnet for self-promotion or family promotion, and there may indeed be much other content there that should be deleted on sight, but two wrongs don't make a right, and current inclusion of dodgy content on that page does not justify including more dodgy content on that page, much less in a separate stand-alone article on Wikipedia. All editors who have a sense of how to verify sources about child prodigies are invited to give List of child prodigies a thorough looking over in the interest of cleaning up that article and meeting Wikipedia policy on reliable, encyclopedic content, especially for BLP statements. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Neither the title of her supposedly already published book, or her upcoming book produce a direct hit on google; just references to her talking about them. If they are for real, what are the ISBN #s? John from Idegon (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am joining this discussion now, since I was asked to comment on this page. All of you who have commented on this page for deletion either have not done proper fact checks or are blindly reporting the substance you want to use to support your arguments. My first question is, did this individual achieve a bachelor's and a master's at the ages mentioned in the article? If you contact the American Military University, it could be clearly confirmed. Has any of you called them? The second question is, is the individual currently studying at Harvard? Then this also could be confirmed easily. Have you actually called Harvard? Also, if you think Harvard extension school has no application required to enroll as a Master's student, then definitely you have not attended Harvard. Then, if you have an issue with the books published, you can buy them and read or search on the web the same way you attempted to search Harvard university extension school. In my opinion, this decision to delete is an action culminated as a result of some of you trying to promote your own agenda. I see no other promotional work in the article other than the mentioning of an upcoming book. This could be easily removed. So, my question to all of you is, how come none of you have answered the questions raised and issues stated by the contributor of the article, but continue to discuss other things? I would like to know the answers to questions I have raised.— Factcheck1111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Factcheck1111 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:20, 30 May 2014‎ (UTC).[reply]
• Keep I completely agree with the following statements, made in the above post:

>My first question is, did this individual achieve a bachelor's and a master's at the ages mentioned in the article? If you contact the American Military University, it could be clearly confirmed. Has any of you called them? The second question is, is the individual currently studying at Harvard? Then this also could be confirmed easily. Have you actually called Harvard? Also, if you think Harvard extension school has no application required to enroll as a Master's student, then definitely you have not attended Harvard. Then, if you have an issue with the books published, you can buy them and read or search on the web the same way you attempted to search Harvard university extension school. In my opinion, this decision to delete is an action culminated as a result of some of you trying to promote your own agenda >— Frizvanov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• And how praytell did these two brand new editors find their way here to make their very first edits? I smell stinky socks or rotten meat. John from Idegon (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect they will keep coming, which isn't unusual at AfDs, but the closing Admin will discount them. I am One of Many (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Miniapolis 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was previously closed as "delete" by an administrator. As a result of discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 2, this discussion is relisted.  Sandstein  20:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the BLP reliable sources for an article about a minor? Returning to the discussion after reading through the relisting discussion, my question for editors here is where we can go to find independent, reliable sources about the article subject for a biographical article about a person who has not yet reached the age of majority? I think an editor in the previous discussion here who looked at the sources then suggested has the best rationale for deletion. The article is basically about a subject notable for one event, with the event itself not being very notable (nor being readily verifiable), so having an article about this young person on Wikipedia can wait until the article subject's adulthood when more notability criteria have been met. I ask other editors to be sure to check how many "sources" for this article essentially rely on press releases from immediate relatives of the article subject, without independent editorial judgment. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was relisted because it was closed early, not because of any merits of the article. The original author has asked to have their account deleted and blanked their talk page. Unless more sock/meat/ducks appear and convince the closer otherwise this article should end up with the same result as before the relisting.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 06:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP1E at best, and even the '1E' is not especially notable. We have high standards for BLP articles, and higher still for BLP articles of minor children, for very very good reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a case of one event, and mainly a case of recentism. She is largely able to be the "youngest graduate in x" because the specific x is a fairly recent innovation. She may well do something that will make her notable, but she hasn't yet. Her unnamed children's books clearly don't make her notable. At least not per the coverage we have in the article. Maybe they are best sellers, but I see no evidence of such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually, if she is a degree student at the Harvard Extension School, that would seem to mean she passed some level of admission requirements, but not the same as for other sub-divisions of harvard. However, it remain unclear is she is a degree or non-degree student. That said, being a student at Harvard does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Multiple sources in-depth meet the GNG. Article could be trimmed a bit. I don't see it as a one-time event but rather an impressive accomplishment, earning college degree and working on masters degrees at such a young age. I don't think the issue of the subject being a minor should limit us, given the coverage on TV stations and in newspapers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (striking previous). I'm going to flip on this, I think I've sold myself that while there is sufficient published material for a sourced biography, this is currently a BLP-1E situation. I wish the subject the best of luck in life and look forward to reading her bio after her career takes off in whichever field she aspires... Carrite (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Matzke[edit]

Dylan Matzke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Had to decline the BLPPROD because Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#Expanding_BLPPROD_to_.22IMDB_only.22.

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources to evidence the notability of this actor, whose article references only a single unreliable database. j⚛e decker^talk 19:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources or claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If he was "widely known" for a role, we would have sources that say this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carl J. Strikwerda[edit]

Carl J. Strikwerda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability concerns; one source fails WP:ROUTINE and the other one is not independent. Thus fails WP:GNG. Launchballer 19:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Head of an institution of higher education is notable per se according to WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. President of Elizabethtown College after a high post at William & Mary College is entirely notable for Wikipedia.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but inprove I am sure we could get a lot better information on Strikwerda's academic contributions. What did he do at KU? This is why we have notability guidelines for academics, because the sources almost always exist for higher-education 4 year college presidents, someone just needs to find them. I would try myself if my computer was not so sluggish. Maybe I will in a few days when I am using a better computer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two more inline citations were added to the article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Also: Original article title now a redirect to an event article, as is appropriate. Steven Walling • talk 00:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda and Jerad Miller[edit]

Amanda and Jerad Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. damiens.rf 18:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily meets WP:SIGCOV. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It just needs to be moved to satisfy point 3 in WP:NOTNEWS. The name should reflect that the article is about the shooting, not the shooters. KinkyLipids (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:SIGCOV and GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets SIGCOV. The fact that it seems to have been ideologically motivated makes it even more notable. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Speedy Keep. I created the article, as it meets all notability guidelines, and there are an abundant of reliable sources available to develop this article further. I have added some good sources in the article's talk page that could be used in that context. Just simply I am too upset about this terrible event at this time to contemplate working on the article. Cwobeel (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not every murder is notable, but one that's received this level of media coverage, including comments from senior politicians, arguably is. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as easily passes SIGCOV as well as GNG. —Davey2010→^{Talk to me} 01:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is an article on a similar event 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings --Librsh (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect - There is seemingly a great amount of coverage about the article. It will remain to be seen whether the coverage will continue, but for now, I believe it is notable. If the article cannot be kept, it should be redirected to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2014 or Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: "List of of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, June 2014"? That is not the subject of the article. The subject is the killing of two police officers and one civilian, based on far-right and fringe beliefs. Cwobeel (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I understand that, however, it is believed that Jerad was killed by a law enforcement officer. Also, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department has a section for fallen officers. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - For better or for worse the subjects clearly meet WP:SIGCOV. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - while victims of such crimes are often not notable (ie notable only for their death, thus the murder of mr. foo articles), the alleged perps often have a long history prior to the event which made them "famous". this history is currently being pored over with a fine tooth comb. their back story prior to the shooting doesnt easily fit into an article on just the shooting. Wait, are people actually debating the shooting as an article? i was actually arguing for the people having an article. while that is at least theoretically debatable, the shooting is NOT. its now moved to 2014 Las Vegas shootings, no separate article for the couple, which i had assumed was what was being discussed. so this is a Tachyon Keep, where we go back in time and retroactively keep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm pleased to see more resolve to cover such well documented events. I don't deny that the changes in coverage (suicide versus police shooting for example) pose problems, but these events never stop getting new interpretations. ah-ooh shoo-be doo-wa Wnt (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Alain[edit]

Cody Alain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Number of references stopped me simply CsDing this, but they are mostly simply credits of his work (ie routine) & I see nothing that establishes notability. Created by new editor who has created several similar quasi-promotional articles. TheLongTone (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Citations, with few exceptions, the cited references indicate that Alain received stylist credit for a photo shoot. The few exceptions are instances when Alain was sought by a journalist as the "expert" to give some hair-styling tips. None of this indicates any significant coverage of Alain. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, and promotional to boot. Deb (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability is not transferred. Hair and makeup by Cody Alain is not coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he's a barber. No real significant coverage in sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one of many articles (re!) created by the same PR agency of a non-notable individual. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The International Portfolio of Artists Photography[edit]

The International Portfolio of Artists Photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Transferred from a PROD by User:Piotrus - reason was "I am unclear what this article is about, but my best guess is that it seems to be about a book that misses Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. The use of references is misleading; the one I checked ([3]) does not mention the book or its presumed author, Jacob."  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per my prod rationale, which I hope is sufficient here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Requests. Even before examining what are presented as sources to see if they indeed are sources, I note that much goes unsourced. I also notice that a lot of what appears to be sourced isn't directly about the book. That said, Wikipedia:Notability (books), cited by the Prokonsul, is an odd set of criteria. It seems to be intended for the kind of book whose author(s)/publisher hopes (however deludedly) will sell in the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands). But let's look at just one part of it: Books should have at a minimum an ISBN (for books published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. ... [B]ooks [may be] notable despite not meeting [this] threshold [standard]—but they will be rare. No they're not at all rare. (Just for starters, it was only in the 1980s that ISBNs became used for the majority of Japanese books, and several publishers of more or less notable Japanese books still don't use them.) And there are other oddities too. ¶ But back to the article. It claims (for example): Having contributed to the network of artists and artists' spaces working in this period, and with ongoing support from the Soros Foundation, New York, from '86 through '89, Jacob traveled bi-annually to Eastern Europe and the USSR to develop further projects with them. The American photographer and theorist Diane Neumaier, in her history of Soviet non-conformist photography, credits these projects as foundational to the work of later historians such as herself. If I understand this correctly, this is not about the ostensible subject of the article, but is instead about related but separate activities. If I'm right, cut; if I'm wrong, explain. Further, the article introduces a long list of what was included in "Jacob's Second Portfolio related productions related to Eastern European photography". I can't even parse that, but again it seems to be merely about "related" (How?) productions. If I'm right, cut; if I'm wrong, explain. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 7 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, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can tell, this is a self-published art project that didn't rise to any notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mikeblas, Piotrus and nom. in that order. --Bejnar (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Cumberbatch Must Die[edit]

Benedict Cumberbatch Must Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable independent play. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this isn't notable at all. It has just been announced, yes. Just see the press release, thus the lack of significant coverage and reviews which will surely follow when it premieres. This is also about a famous actor and when the mainstream press finds out about it, there will be more coverage and sources for it. It is also staged at the BATS Theatre, a well-known theatre in New Zealand. Here are posters of it all over town https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bplzs3QCcAAvnfG.jpg000BCF (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't mainstream coverage yet, then it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article. Once there is significant coverage the article can be recreated. We have to be careful on Wikipedia to not try to predict the future or serve as a means for promotion. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actors are already in rehearsals (see press release), so it's definitely happening. They're also already open for booking (one can't book on opening night as it's sold out). In film terms, they're already in post production and has already set out promotion. The only problem with this is the lack of secondary sources (found a few, still, it's entirely different to not being notable or being an article created "too soon") and reviews (the show hasn't premiered yet). If there are no secondary sources/reviews cited after the end of its run, then that's the time it should be considered a candidate for deletion. 000BCF (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Articles shouldn't be created because they are expected to be notable in the future. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and there's no rush to preemptively include every topic. I would support a move to draft: namespace or a Userspace draft as proposed below, and if this play does become notable the article can be moved back. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Userfy per WP:TOOSOON and as a potential WP:BLP violation based on the name. The time to include the article is when there are secondary sources/reviews cited which indicate notability. We don't write about things in anticipation of them becoming notable - notability is required. Ivanvector (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy on the grounds that its too soon for the play to be notable. Lots of plays open and then sink without trace.TheLongTone (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Move it back to mainspace if it gains notability, or delete as appropriate. Ivanvector (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft: namespace as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Unauthorized, potentially dangerous to the named celebrity due to the title, and should/may receive a cease and desist order at any time. Basically a "fanfic" piece that is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.244.211 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI there are numerous films and books and plays that are unauthorized by their subject. For example, Grace of Monaco, The Fifth Estate, etc. It may be a fanfic piece (like Fifty Shades of Gray, let's be real here) but it got press (local as it was featured in Radio Active FM in NZ and international http://www.myheimat.de/news/kommentieren/benedict-cumberbatch-muss-sterben-was-sagt-der-sherlock-star-dazu-d2612865.html and it's going into actual, real production. Also, the title is misleading. From the primary source, if you cared to read is a complimentary piece on the actor.120.28.127.52 (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Userfy per Stuartyeates, TheLongTone, and Ivanvector. Mentor creator 000BCF. --Bejnar (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This got both local and international press. It got featured in Radio Active FM in NZ (links to follow) and this http://www.myheimat.de/news/kommentieren/benedict-cumberbatch-muss-sterben-was-sagt-der-sherlock-star-dazu-d2612865.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.127.52 (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't read German, but this appears to be a user-submitted news site not unlike a community blog. I think it would fail WP:RS but at any rate it appears to be the only source we have that's not based on the press release from the theatre. I maintain this should go into draft or user space until such time as it opens, and major independent critics review the play.

For those who are interested, the draft guideline on notability for plays is worthwhile reading. Ivanvector (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Mackin[edit]

Joseph Mackin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear notable per WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. Seems to fail WP:GNG as well. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've cleaned out the worst of the sourcing, as much of it was WP:PRIMARY such as the guy's own website and a routine notification of an event. I also removed duplicates of the same source, as the same interview was posted in several different newspapers. For the original editor and anyone coming in, a news story is considered to be one source, regardless of where it is posted or re-posted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's just too soon for an entry. There are two trade reviews and one interview, but not really anything else out there. If there was a review in a more solid source or another interview or news article somewhere, then it'd be different and maybe a weak keep, but he just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "'Keep"'. The cleaned version looks OK. Article could be improved over time. Nmwalsh (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Delete, basically one debut book and contributions through other channels such as the 2paragraphs website and the New York Journal. My searches found a Reuters (saying the same thing as the Malaysian news link in the article), one review website that my computer said was "untrusted", other small review websites and primary links. Not much. It's not a terrible article but it could have some more substance. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 request of article creator. Non-admin closure. --Finngall ^talk 18:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark wiggins[edit]

Mark wiggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Based on my reading of machine translations of the sources, there is only routine coverage of this person. I would normally redirect to the article on Guandan, but there isn't one. If Guandan isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I doubt that a player who peaked at #16 is. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mark Simpson (journalist). ...applying editorial judgment at the target, of course. WP:NEO sets a high bar; the WP:USEFUL argument is generally a weak argument at best and was discounted as such j⚛e decker^talk 17:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spornosexual[edit]

Spornosexual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable neologism. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a merge to Mark Simpson (journalist) --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON at best. --Finngall ^talk 17:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A single-sourced neologism for a sexual aesthetic that's existed for years and didn't really need a name? Delete. I'd also accept redirection to Mark Simpson, as has been proposed by others — it certainly merits a passing mention in his article even if it doesn't warrant a standalone article yet. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Mark Simpson (journalist), its creator. It does have some press[4][5] but could still be a flash-in-the-pan, forgotten tomorrow; could easily be covered in Simpson's article, where it would benefit from contextual information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Or rather Deletometastic, which is a word I just made up combining the words "delete," "metastasize," and "fantastic." Non-notable neologism. No redirect needed, the term has no currency. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge contents into the Mark Simpson page. It is just too soon to tell if this term will catch on. (Tigerghost (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge into Mark Simpson (journalist) or Metrosexual, leave redirection. --Bazi (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No redirect too neologistic. Fails WP:GNG. Not really in usage, just a witticism. --Bejnar (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has multiple [6] [7] [8] [9] (just to list a few) reliable sources specifically on this term. Mathmo ^Talk 06:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is being used in newspapers in Italy and probably other European countries. I detest this neologism, but I think a wikipedia page on it can be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.35.7 (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with kudos to User:Bejnar. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Butterworth Cover[edit]

Butterworth Cover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

After doing a verification check, all results that contained "Butterworth" and "Cover" were sheer coincidence and bear no relation to subject whatsoever. One cited source may be published by creator. Failed WP:V test, and possibly is WP:A11. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doing a search using "Butterworth cover hatch" came up with [10], [11], [12], so it is a genuine term. However I doubt if is notable: is there any suitable merge target?TheLongTone (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly notable. Butterworth hatches and covers (plates) are standard on oil tankers and similar vessels. They have been responsible for a number of marine losses. Consulting additional marine engineering texts should help clear up any lack of understanding. I have added additional citations to the article. --Bejnar (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following added citations and other improvements by User:Bejnar. PWilkinson (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mz7 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Žamboch[edit]

Miroslav Žamboch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Challenged G11. Unambiguous promotion of a possibly notable subject. Content is not very encyclopedic. WP:NOT dictates that Wikipedia is not a place to promote. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: I'm genuinely not sure what the nom is referring to. I agree that "modern-sensibility-imbued" sounds a bit strange, but other than that...Brigade Piron (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not an advertisement. OccultZone (Talk) 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 15:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep, definitely not a G11 and from the references and links (except the one dead one) he seems to be notable enough for an article to be written. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 16:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable Czech fantasy writer--Yopie (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (disclaimer: creator). I am pretty sure he passes Wikipedia:Notability (writers). Sources in English are sparse, but there are more in Polish, and presumably in Czech. Here's a Polish ref - article looks reliable - that he is one of the best known Czech fantasy and SF writers: [13]. His books have numerous reviews on Polish book/fantasy/sf websites, such as [14] or [15]. That said, I admit I am not finding any coverage of him in mainstream press, but then it's not that common for fantasy/sf writers to receive such coverage - we have plenty of English authors who were never mentioned in mainstream press (NYT, etc.) but are still undoubtedly notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I have added another reference to the article. Is it time for WP:SNOW yet? --Bejnar (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Aburjania[edit]

Giorgi Aburjania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements garner significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per GiantSnowman, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Bejnar (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Peridon per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Ferrante discography[edit]

Roberto Ferrante discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Large, poorly-sourced discography of a non-notable producer. This list seems to include everything that the producer was even remotely involved with. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - MrX 12:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Just like (and as an extension of) the person's article failing WP:BIO, this fails WP:GNG. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haline (novel)[edit]

Haline (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable (self-published?) book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - MrX 12:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, can find nothing to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications that this book has made any significant impact anywhere. It is the author's debut novel (according to his Amazon profile) and is published by an organization (Forward Press Books) of which I can find no information. There is a Forward Press books company, but the appear to be in the business of spiritual publication, and do not list this book among their offerings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG fails WP:BOOK, absolutely no significant coverage, not mentioned in Publishers Weekly, not listed on OCLC. --Bejnar (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Ferrante[edit]

Roberto Ferrante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly-sourced promotional biography of a non-notable producer, arranger, composer, musician, and record company founder. The sources consist almost entirely of closely affiliated coverage of the record company that he founded. The article has potential WP:BLP violations and numerous unsourced claims. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. - MrX 12:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable, fails WP:BIO. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG/WP:MUSICBIO/WP:BIO. The one substantial article appears to be more about the label he founded Planet Records Europe, which has a problematic but not delete-worthy article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 11:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhiloda (Vidhan Sabha constituency)[edit]

Bhiloda (Vidhan Sabha constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability concerns. Launchballer 12:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep. This is equivalent to a state Legislative district in a state of the USA, or a Legislative Assembly/House of Assembly electoral district in Australia. We cover those electoral districts, and it's natural to do the same for their equivalents in other democracies. This isn't the equivalent to an electoral ward in the UK. This is the Indian equivalent of something like this or this. RomanSpa (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Per RomanSpa.The editor who has created the article deserve a barnstar for creating these important pages.Such pages existed for other states of India but not for Gujarat. S/he has filled the gap. Shyamsunder (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Barnstar given. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Shyamsunder (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. There are no sources around other than a couple from the government. This topic is just fine sitting alone in a section about divisions of India or whatever. Tezero (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to what? India? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An easy google found me dozens of references, ranging from governmental sources to newspapers and political pundits. Possibly there's something wrong with your search engine... RomanSpa (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Vidhan Sabha constituencies—the equivalent of U.S. state Congressional districts—are by default notable.—indopug (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep, all legislative constituencies are notable per default. There is definately material for expansion, it used to be a double-member constituency, had a bye-election in the 1950s, and again in the 1960s (in which the Swatantra Party suffered a defeat), etc. --Soman (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Per default"? What does that even mean? Tezero (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is easy to use Dictionary.com for words you don't understand. In this case "per" is being used in the third sense cited in its Dictionary.com entry: "according to; in accordance with". RomanSpa (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. As stated above, all legislative constituencies are inherently notable on WP.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not stated above. Tezero (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Curtin[edit]

Chris Curtin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable sources that I can find, other than the usual corporate webpages – article lists several "sources", which are either all self-published or fail to mention Curtin at all. He certainly seems to have held the positions listed in his article, but done nothing in them to suggest any particular notability. Appears to largely be a puff-piece, written by an editor with no other contributions. IgnorantArmies 12:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, not notable. Shorn again (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Absolutely promotional and doesn't mention any specific years and dates so I had to do that on my own. Searches found nothing substantial aside from one "Q&A link" from a market researcher). I didn't click every reference as I don't want to flood myself but it seems there's not much for an article. The article reads like a business profile/resume in and out. SwisterTwister talk 21:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renya Xydis[edit]

Renya Xydis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

nn selfpromotional puffpiece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - even if the client list was accurate and sourced (it isn't) she still wouldn't inherit notability from her notable clients. There is some coverage out there but much of it is just someone quoting the subject talking about herself. Hardly independent significant coverage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Fails WP:RS and WP:NOT. Wayne 05:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Largely based on GNG j⚛e decker^talk 16:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Sorola[edit]

Gus Sorola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Being a computer technician and voice actor is not enough, not by a far stretch. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot find "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject...", which is required to meet the basic standard of notability under WP:BASIC. Neither is there any evidence of a) significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; b) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following or c) unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, which are required to establish notability under WP:NACTOR. I therefore support the nomination on the basis of lack of notability, as destined in WP policy. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - RoosterTeeth has one of the largest fanbases of the online gaming community, so I'm not too sure where there's no evidence of a "significant cult following". Also, as referred to in the previous AfD by User:I JethroBT, Red vs. Blue, which he has a significant role in, is one of the most notable types of machinima. Connormah (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not about Rooster Teeth, which has its own WP page and is not being considered for deletion. The notability requirements for a person need to assessed through the existence of secondary sources - and in this case there do not appear to be any supporting either he basic criteria for a person's notability or the the three more specific ones relating to actors. If there is a "significant cult following", nobody is writing about it (as far as I can tell), and that means there is a lack of credible source material to verify notability. On a side note, the previous AfD was in 2011 and in the three years since then not a single secondary source has been added to the article - the article continues to lack any reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the references in the article now are from IMDb (not reliable) and 3 are from the Rooster Teeth website (just a primary source), oh and Youtube but I wouldn't hold notability on that. No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the last time this was nominated for deletion. Actor is notable. Article needs fixing, not deletion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • EvergreenFir, that isn't a legit reason to keep per WP:NOTAGAIN LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments from the previous nomination in 2011 can be restated here, but to keep now only because it was decided to keep then is not a valid argument. Claims that the actor is notable need to be supported with substance in accordance with policy - otherwise they should be disregarded in assessing the outcome of this debate. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Wikipeterproject. I'm saying I agree with past arguments. Want me to copy-paste here? EvergreenFir (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir - Perhaps you could just summarise the main points of the arguments you wish to incorporate into this current debate? Copy-paste is not desirable, in my opinion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of arguments: He satisfies all 3 criteria of WP:NACTOR. He's a voice actor for a main character in Red vs. Blue (which he also cofounded) and also a voice actor in The Strangerhood. Red vs. Blue is a video series with 241 episodes and is currently in its 12th season. Some of its content was included with the release of Halo 3, DVDs of the seasons are sold at Game Stop, and they had a film in the Sundance Film Festival (see also 1 and 2) . His work has been the subject of reviews (1, 2, 3) and he's mentioned on other websites (1 and 2). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EvergreenFir - appreciate the summary. I recommend that the closing administrator should look at the above sources as part of the closing decision to determine whether they are adequate to meet WP:GNG. As stated in my delete opinion, above, I do not believe that either GNG or the three notability criteria for WP:NACTOR are, in fact, met. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, the three references (whether reliable or not) are reviews of Red vs. Blue; Sorola is only mentioned once by name in the first two, not at all in the third. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend yes, but in my reading of WP:NACTOR that's all that's needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; consensus and strength of argument is stronger for deletion. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outer South London Line[edit]

Outer South London Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The first sentence says it all "The Outer South London Line is an unofficial name...".

The "line" comprises parts of the Brighton Main Line and the Crystal Palace Line. There do not appear to be any reliable sources referencing the name - the few ghits which aren't wikipedia mirrors are forums or user comments (not even the train operator calls it this). -mattbuck (Talk) 09:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and could the closing admin, if this is closed as delete, also move Inner South London Line to South London Line, as this disambiguation was created due to the Outer South London Line page. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Invented wiki-name with no references since its creation to demonstrate verifiability or notability. As stated above, the article describes a service pattern which in itself fails WP:NOTTIMETABLE. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obviously unofficial name & no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but Rewrite and rename or Redirect - While the name is apparently invented by a Wiki-user, that doesn't make it an illegitimate line. If there is an official name it should be renamed as such. Otherwise redirect it to either the Brighton Main Line or the Crystal Palace Line. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a legitimate line in the railway sense. There may be services that operate that route, but they don't have a particular name. Nor should it be redirected as it is not completely covered by the Brighton Main Line or the Crystal Palace Line. The best redirect would be to Inner South London Line (or rather "South London Line", as it should be renamed once this is deleted). -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  So would that make it more like the Metra Rock Island District which splits between the Beverly Branch and Rush Hour branch? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Unlike the Rock Island line, this particular route has no individual identity as such. One user has thrown together parts of two lines and given them a made-up name. The vast majority of ghits are for Wiki-clone sites. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I think I useed this many years ago. However it is more a train service than a railway line. It is convenient to run trains in a loop from one central station to another, rather than on a there and back-again basis. If "Southern London Line" if an official name, I would support the renaming of the other one: this would not prevent this one surviving under its present name. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, No redirect per Lamberhurst and Davey2010. There is nothing here, no line, no notability. --Bejnar (talk) 05:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siphiwe Robert Mtsweni[edit]

Siphiwe Robert Mtsweni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Can't find evidence that this person exists. A google search finds WP mirrors. The International Young Design Entrepreneur of the Year page doesn't mention him. Possibly a hoax Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A Google search for the name generates only WP and a small number of hits almost certainly derived from WP. Hoax is possible. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a South African soccer player named Simphiwe Mtsweni. LINK. I'm going to tag the article as a hoax. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is also an unsourced BLP as it sits. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found results along the same lines as Carrite, nothing solid to put here. The article is vague but I searched including some of those awards and found absolutely nothing. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If found to be hoax, move the page so it can appear on the hoax list. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as hoax. No hoax list, let us not dignify it. --Bejnar (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingdom of Colonia St. John[edit]

The Kingdom of Colonia St. John (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced article about a topic that's sitting somewhere indeterminable along the line between non-notable micronation and total stinking WP:HOAX. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the opinion of User:Bearcat. Z10987 (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Tomás Cloma This is not a hoax, and I was able to find some reliable sources (e.g. [16]). That said, the content of the article is junk, and it doesn't seem to me to be that notable separate from Cloma's claim. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete: My response to Mangoe appears to have disappeared after only a couple of hours, so to reiterate...

This page is certainly NOT a Hoax page, as has now been accepted. This is a genuine issue and is presently before the International Court of Arbitration in The Hague. If the statements made on the page were untrue, then A) The Lawyers would be all over us and B) The Hague would not be wasting their time (and considerable financial outlay) formally considering it. I say again, if there are specific issues that require editting on the Page, then we are more than happy to engage & assist in addressing such issues in a positive partnership. However we would ask that the Page is not Deleted, certainly until The Hague has given its judgment. Thank you. MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.67.185 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some actual reliable sourcing would be a start. We don't keep articles just because somebody asserts the topic's existence, if that thing doesn't actually show up in any real sources which properly verify the claims in question. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, hear what you are saying Bearcat. So how can we address this matter? - what kind of things would you like to see included? We could link to the Government of Colonia website for starters but what else do you need to see included? Grateful for advice here. MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincday1 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a topic's own website is never sufficient sourcing for an article on it, because it's not independent of the subject and thus does not constitute proof of notability. (Not to mention that since it's remarkably easy to put up a web page containing absolutely anything the page creator wants, it's not even the least bit difficult to create web content that would "prove" the truth of a hoax — so even having a website doesn't inherently prove that it actually exists.) Reliable sourcing is media coverage (newspaper/magazine articles, books, etc.) about the topic. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understand - I can pull this material together over the next few days and will add it to the Page. Thanks for guidance here. MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincday1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, No Redirect This is covered in the Kalayaan Islands#Geography. I would get this out of here right now. It is mostly rubbish, e.g. CIA Factbook cited: No results found for "Kingdom of Colonia" site:cia.gov. etc. Some of the territorial issues mentioned are before the Hague court, but not this. Subsumed in Philippines' claim, see Yorac, Haydee B. "The Philippine Claim to the Spratly Islands Group." Philippine Law Journal 58 (1983): 42-63. --Bejnar (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually mentioned, under another name, in another section of the article, the main article for wchih is, as I said above, inside Tomás Cloma. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:FRINGE concepts require additional third-party reliable sources, and as of present there are very few sources within this article demonstrating notability of this self-purported nation state. There is essentially zero coverage of this topic in mainstream media. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform to introduce and push new ideas, this encyclopedia only covers information well established in existing literature. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per WP:UNDUE policy. STSC (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's nothing to keep here. Even if there was cause for a redirect (which I don't see), the content should still be deleted first, so as to discourage recreation. --Rob (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riyaz Gangji[edit]

Riyaz Gangji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod. Non-notable fashion designer. Fails WP:GNG. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Way below the notability guideline. Current references add no weight and no others found via Google search.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The one news article included is from the past week which I found in a Google News search along with a video of him accusing MP Nilesh Rane of assault which a separate search found many more links, an additional search with "Riyaz Gangji fashion designer" found nothing aside from one news links that weren't significant or solid including this with "fashion tips". At the end of that search, I found some more results for that assault accusation. I've seen links including that current Times of India that say he was selected out of certain number of people and there doesn't seem to be anything there. Additional searches at Times of India found this and at Financial Times, photos. There are links here (including from the past 4 years) but nothing significant (no awards, other recognitions, etc.) to add to the article. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Restaurant. ...to the extent that content about the term can be, with good editorial judgment, included at Restaurant, at least. j⚛e decker^talk 16:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piqueteadero[edit]

Piqueteadero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is a dictioary entry at best and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This noun did not even merit an entry as a word in the dictionaries of the Real Academia Española or Larousse dictionaries, which are the prevalent language guides in the country where this word claims to be used in. This is not a word, this should not be in wikipedia, this should be deleted as it is not in widespread usage, not if any significant value or purpose. -eadero is a Spanish noun/verb-forming suffix, similar to -ery in English, like tannery. But just like in English, just because you add the suffix to a word doesn't automatically make it a valid word. piquet- apparently comes from the word piquete (marked only as a Colombian-only regionalism), which means picnic, whether it derives its root from the English word is less certain as most dictionaries don't even include it. Now, I am from Colombia, and this word is most definitely not in the common usage, and at most is a regionalism. From the sound of it, and the current description in the article, it just seems like an appropriated word akin to the word eatery in English to describe an informal place where one gets informal and bite size forms of food. There is an entry for it in the Spanish Wikipedia, which also lacks any reasoning for inclusion as an article and which frankly should also be deleted. mijotoba (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a Google Books search shows that the terminology is quite real. A regionalism? Yes, probably. But these places serve a distinct type of cuisine and I, for one, would like to know more about them. There is an article here on Spanish Wikipedia about this subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is not like other types of restaurants don't serve this food as well, this is fast food, everything from food trucks, to cafeterias, to restaurants (including Colombian restaurants here in the US) serve this food as well. And please don't reference the Spanish wikipedia, it is one of the most unreliable places in the internet I've seen; and that article's only reference is a blog site. mijotoba (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are, presumably, articles for cafeterias, cafes, drive-thrus and buffets. This is a type of restaurant that you are not familiar with so you should be happy we have an article that explains a bit about it. Even in English language sources we find it noted as here and there are restaurants in the U.S. that use the term. The word is used in various guidebooks and other sources and it's reasonable to expect us to explain what it is. Here's another source explaining what it is and the type of food served at this style of eatery. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 31 May 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 ♔ 02:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Restaurant. It's a Spanish-language word and term, per Google Books searches. However, the topic may not merit a standalone article per the depth of coverage existent about it, at least those available in online source searches. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 31 May 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thamuz[edit]

Thamuz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non notable comic book character without third person sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 May 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) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Spawn villains. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - No claim to notability, and what little content the article has doesn't seem worth merging; if someone later decides otherwise, the content can always be retrieved from the article history. List of Spawn villains is probably the best target for the redirect, but I can't help but wonder if we should instead redirect it to Tammuz (deity), as a plausible misspelling of "Thammuz".--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:15, 30 May 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real world info, aside from the unsourced note about an action figure (but said note is phrased as trivia with original research). Redirecting to List of Spawn Villains seems pointless since the list includes nothing besides names. I have no issue with changing it to a redirect for the deity as mentioned above. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legion (Image Comics)[edit]

Legion (Image Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non notable comic book character without third person sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 May 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) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Spawn villains. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Aside from the perfunctory inclusion of the word "fictional" in the first sentence, this article is written entirely from an in-universe perspective. The only good use for the content that I can see is transferring it over to the Spawn wiki. And since I don't think the article's subject is explicitly referred to as "the Legion" more than a handful of times, "Legion (Image Comics)" doesn't seem like a useful redirect term.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:02, 30 May 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no real world info in the article, and a quick google search doesn't indicate much to add anyway. The list of spawn villains is just a list without any context, so merging doesn't make much sense unless. If the list is ever expanded like the current efforts on the List of Marvel Comics Characters, I wouldn't oppose including something about the character then. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Padmalochanan Nair[edit]

Padmalochanan Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined BLPPROD assuming good faith on the one reference added, to a book called "Unknown Philosophers" I can't find evidence of.

In any case, reference aside, I can't find information which would verify the existence or establish the notability of this fellow. Depending on what you think of the source, possibly A7. j⚛e decker^talk 05:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm the editor who added the PROD BLP when the article had no references at all. I'm glad that a reference has been added since then, but that reference itself is problematical. Where one might expect it to describe Padmalochanan Nair (on the page cited), the citation format suggests instead that Padmalochanan Nair is the author. Searching for the publisher, “Jagruti Books”, turns up Jagruti Books, but they produce blank books (“diaries, notebooks, agendas, office stationery”). Various other Websites such as linked-in, although not reliable sources for article content, confirm the nature of Jagruti Books. So the lone “source” citation is a combination of the name of this article, the current year, the phrase “unknown philosophers”, and the brand name from a blank notebook. Maybe I'm just cynical this week after finding another BLP which was a hoax, but I'm not feeling warm and fuzzy about this.  Unician ∇  08:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I share your concern about that source. It was tempting to go with my gut and delete it at PROD, that I didn't may just be an abundance of caution. The title itself is ... suggestive. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unable to find solid links and with solid information, I found nothing for the book and since the article doesn't have much more information, there's not much to search. Probably a minor philosopher. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails verification, the cited book is not in OCLC, nor in the OPAC of the National Library of India (nationallibrary.gov.in), nor in the Online Union Catalogue of Indian Universities - INFLIBNET Union Catalogue (indcat.inflibnet.ac.in). --Bejnar (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to Miss International Queen. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International Queen 2004[edit]

Miss International Queen 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Miss International Queen 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss International Queen 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss International Queen 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss International Queen 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss International Queen 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss International Queen 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss International Queen 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss International Queen 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Miss International Queen 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per "no consensus" closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss International Queen 2012, what we have here is a batch of articles which break out a beauty pageant by every individual year in which it's been held — but not a single article in the bunch cites even one reliable source to actually support a standalone article (in every last case the only "sources" are the organization's own webpage and its Facebook profile.) The articles, further, frequently contain unverifiable WP:BLP violations like "Bianca Gold, according to rumors in Facebook, she is the mayor trafficant of transgender from Brazil to Denmark and other parts in Europe, this is only a rumor" or "Ruby Bella Cruz got angry before she did not make the Top 10." or, possibly my favourite slice of hell-to-the-no in Wikipedia ever, "Shantell D'Marco from is not virgin anymore. She lost it when she was only 9 years old." We don't need a comprehensive set of unsourced articles about every individual year's pageant — the main parent article (which I'm not proposing that we delete) already contains as much detail as we actually need or can properly source. Either delete all or redirect all to Miss International Queen. No prejudice against recreation in the future if real reliable sources can actually be cited, but the absence of proper sourcing we cannot keep a separate spinout for each individual year (especially ones that contain BLP-flouting assertions about the competitors' virginity — just for the record, it's a transgender beauty pageant, which is why the "lost her virginity at 9" one counts as a bigger BLP violation than the "mayor of transgender" thing.) Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all as per my earlier nom in which I said Non-notable running of event. No independent refs. Googling finds no independent refs with in depth coverage. Merge and redirect to Miss International Queen possible to avoid 404'ing links. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all per stuart. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all as above. Mabalu (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to Miss International Queen. Strangely, I saw a documentary on the pageant on TV just yesterday (Thailand is known for its large number of transgenders), but I believe that none of these events have any individuals notability. Also, the main article needs more sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Salvestine[edit]

Antony Salvestine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparent hoax. See also Nigel Dawson, and note that I deleted Tony Catherton at BLPPROD and it appears entirely unsourcable as well. j⚛e decker^talk 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]