< 29 June	1 July >

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

The result was merge to Feminist movements in the United States. The first merge !vote recommends merging Feminist movements in the United States into this article, but the remaining merge !votes appear to be for vice-versa. While the sole keep !vote is also valid, ultimately, consensus here is for a merge of this article into Feminist movements in the United States. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism in the United States[edit]

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

This article covers the same ground as the article "feminist movements in the United States" but this article is less detailed and has fewer references Maranjosie (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge feminist movements in the United States into this article (since this one has a more concise title). Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable as entire books are written about it such as A History of U.S. Feminisms. Andrew (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Feminist movements in the United States. The titles briefly made me wonder if these were actually two slightly different topics, but the nominator is correct: they cover the exact same subjects.TheBlueCanoe 01:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Zambelo; talk 23:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Clearly a fork. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by admin Sphilbrick per G3 - blatant hoax. (Non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh Team[edit]

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

Possibly invented. Searching indicates that this show doesn't exist on any of the provided channels. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator due to already deleted under Wikipedia:CSD#G3 today. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as apparent hoax. I could find no trace of this. Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to have been deleted already? Bearian (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sony#Electronics. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Electronics[edit]

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

This article can be merged into Sony or Sony Corporation of America. There isn't enough material for it to merit its own article. ɱ (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sony#Electronics. The article nominated for deletion does not improve upon the electronics section on the main article about the company. MJ94 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deiranisation[edit]

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

I found no independent confirmation of the term or article content. Ultimately all is tracked down to a 1995 article by a Piruz Mojtahedzadeh, and no extra information. The page tagged as POV since 2012 Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources. If this was a thing, it should be developed at Bahrain–United Kingdom relations. A claim mentioned at Wikipediocracy posits that this article is a PR attempt by Iran. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely not notable enough for standalone article. If there was some reliably sourced content then that could be merged to History of Bahrain but as there is none, a deletion seems appropriate.--Staberinde (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Simpson[edit]

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

All I've been able to find about this illustrator is an interview at technicalillustrators.org and apparently a gallery of illustrations of polar bears hiding in a snowstorm. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – he is an illustrator of numerous books but I can find no independent biog or multiple reliable sources on him to show that he is notable or in any way special. The article (technicalillustrators.org) noted above contains only a short description para then lots of self-referencing text from Simpson. The Wired site linked in his article again only shows some of his illustrations, with no mention of who he is, or how important he is in his field. Acabashi (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. The wired article doesn't count, as it is not about him, but just an example of an illustration.--Theredproject (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Holm[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is part of the first team of Brøndby IF. Since he has not played, however, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comments from the teams football director are clear that he's been made part of the first team with the expectation of playing [1] as such it's almost certain he will play and meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The season starts in 14 days, it's a waste of time and energy to delete an article that would very likely be recreated in a few weeks. There's no rush to delete this article before then. There are no firm rules that say this article needs to be deleted before we see happens, and there is WP:NORUSH. This article remaining in place for a few weeks does no harm, so let's show a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE; if something bizarre happens over the summer, the article can simply go to AFD at that time. Nfitz (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This position is not supported by consensus. This year alone, it was raised sixteen times at afd without quickly becoming a moot point, and sixteen times it was rejected. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FOOTY, WP:GNG. If he becomes notable that would be the time to create an article, but we can't keep an article because his coach says he might become notable. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creagerstown Park[edit]

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

I created this article a while back thinking that the topic might be notable, but at this point I'm not really so sure anymore. Certainly there are notable parks, but I'm not sure this one is. Any thoughts? Zell Faze (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable park in a small town. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facade (wrestler)[edit]

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

No notable independent wrestler. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bishopstown. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoil an Spioraid Naoimh[edit]

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

NN primary schools. Orphan article, wholly uncited, tagged for these maladies since 2010. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bishopstown (and maybe mention it there) per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, rather than redirect, to Bishopstown per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which says to merge to school district rather than delete from the encyclopedia. Sources can be found for this school. It is part of the network of the Sisters of Mercy schools in Ireland, which is a notable religious order. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of nomination the article was wholly uncited. Redirect (if the article is not deleted) is in such a case preferable to merge. Epeefleche (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, SW3's suggestion that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES militates in favor of merge over redirect is incorrect. As can be seen by reading OUTCOMES. Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bishopstown per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Place[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found one source already for this album - I agree that 50+ PRODs is too many, especially because as Shaidar cuebiyar noted, many of them have charted.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. A couple of discography mentions, but that's it. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No argument expressed that would prejudice against a redirect. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forever (Hillsong album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On 19 June 2014 the nominator PRODed some 50+ Hillsong-related articles see here. From 21 June I noticed this list and that some 10+ of these PRODs were charting albums at either ARIA or Billboard. I have gone through more of the 50+ list and added sources where possible and dePRODed any that I felt had a reliable source for their existence. I was hoping to get time to supply further sources to attempt to establish notability. With so many articles to research this is not necessarily achievable in a short time-frame. The nominator has sent most of the dePRODed articles straight to AfD. I ask for time/assistance in actually searching for sources to support the articles' notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ I found one source, I don't know if there are any others, I could not find any during my g-hits search.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - Weak delete I can't find anything else after searching most of the relevant sources on WP:CCM/S. On the cusp of notability, but not quite.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable by itself, could be merged into the main Hillsong article. Zambelo; talk 23:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - G12 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanocore[edit]

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

Is this really notable and encyclopaedic? It looks distinctly promotional, and I suspect copyright violation as well. Peridon (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of [2]. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gracia Arts Project[edit]

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

Fails CORPDEPTH. There are a whole lot of sources that list it in a list of galleries, local papers with a sentence or two advertising a show taking place there, etc. but I'm not seeing enough significant coverage in reliable sources. That the article appears to have been written by one of its founders doesn't lend confidence, either. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The project's website seems to have been taken over and repurposed for dumps of random phrases about cars, and their Wordpress site seems to have gone dormant at the end of 2010. Neither of these indicates an active project. That wouldn't matter if there was clear evidence of notability in its time, but the passing mentions available in the existing references fall short as just routine event coverage and searches are turning up nothing better. AllyD (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG, WP:V. Passing mention only found. No actual coverage. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bojuka[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art. No indication it is particularly widespread with the article written more as an advertisement. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and also fails to meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage required by both MANOTE and GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is a redirect, not an article. As Clarityfiend says, go to WP:RfD or put up a WP:CSD#G6 tag. Ansh666 05:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Ansh666 05:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The World Federalist Movement (Canada)[edit]

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

Malformed article title. Article has been moved to World Federalist Movement-Canada Meclee (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to get rid of this redirect, you're in the wrong place. Simply WP:SPEEDY delete it per G6 or, as a second option, go to WP:RfD. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:19, 30 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 to Primeval. Redirect to Primeval. It IS a red flag when next to nothing in the references addresses the subject. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Kearney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Have next to no reliable sources about her. I have found 1 article [3] but other than that, nothing. Other sources are just about her dating Theo James. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primeval. It's a big red flag when most of the media notice has been about her relationship with Theo James. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant role in a significant series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can that be backed by WP:RS? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A TV show is media in its own right and thus a source in its own right. It doesn't need further written sources to back up its content. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But when it comes to a BLP, everything needs to be sourced, you can't just rely on the series wikipedia article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not relying on the article. I'm relying on the series, which as I said is a source in and of itself! Do you actually think there's any difference in reliability between the broadcast credits of the series saying Ruth Kearney played Jess Parker and a written source saying she played Jess Parker? Of course there isn't. They're both reliable and acceptable sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As NACTOR states (bolding mine), "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the multi roles rule, and no indication she has a cult following or other things that might allow for an exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruth is an Irish actress with a wide variety of roles. Fans need a place to come learn more about her.
Keep Meets the GNG. That her wiki-page averages 150 pageviews per day suggests there is a following. She has done multiple roles, namely Primeval and Covert Affairs. In-depth independent multiple coverage of her here and here plus numerous mentions of her dating Hollywood hearthrob Theo James.---Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you added weren't reliable plus the 4 sources you posted were strictly about her dating Theo James. Plus her 1 episode in Covert Affairs isn't significant. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin, please note that the nominator removed numerous sources against the policy WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. That Ruth Kearney dated star Theo James for five years which shows Ruth staying in the eye of tabloids.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I just told you why I removed them as they are not reliable sources. And her dating Theo James does not make her notable. Notability is not WP:INHERITED LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Associations between people can be important; would Barbara Bush be notable, if not married to George H. W. Bush? A subject's friends, family, spouses, partners, and so forth can have a powerful impact on whether a person becomes notable. That Ruth Kearney dated a star who has become quite famous is, like it or not, part of RK's notability. It means her name will come up more with talent agents, reporters, and she will get more roles and attention as a result, not only in magazines and by fans, but by movie directors, TV casting agents, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primeval or Delete due to lack of independent notability. WP:WAX (What about X) also is an argument to avoid for AFD's as the notability of one subject cannot be solely used to determine the notability of another subject. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and redirect to Primeval Did an extensive search for sources. There is no notability so does not meet WP:GNG. Had one notable relationship not WP:Inherited. Had a single notable role. The very fact this article is just 2 sentences containing those two facts means I have no hesitation in leaning delete SPACKlick (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ruth Kearney will be recurring in US show Tyrant and played a major character in Primeval. My concern is that the Delete requests for her page have been made due to the hate she has been getting due to her aforementioned relationship with Theo James. There are a faction of "Sheo" fans who would like nothing more than to see all traces of Ruth and her relationship with TJ erased from the Internet. To delete her page purely for reasons relating to her relationship is reminiscent of cyber-bullying and should not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.110.254 (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as starring as Jess Parker in Primeval for two seasons - a main character for those two seasons - Ruth Kearney has also starred in Jet Stream, a made for TV movie, and One Day, a short-film adaption of the novel of the same name. She has an upcoming role as Katharina in FX's Tyrant as well. Smaller roles include two episodes of Holby City, a popular UK medical drama and is credited in the film Fast Freddie, The Waitress And Me as being The Waitress. These are alongside her numerous theatre roles and her background as a Bristol Old Vic graduate. details listed here — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexaP-83 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that this has even been flagged as a page to be deleted shows how far some people are willing to go to try and indulge in their fantasies that Ruth Kearney does not exist so that their idols are free to be together. Whether the OP is aware of that or part of that movement, I cannot say and will assume for arguments sake that s/he is not. I will, however, ask the Wiki Admin who reviews this to acknowledge that there is currently a pointless hate campaign being waged against this actress that may or may not be linked to this request. Ruth Kearney deserves to keep her wikipedia page. She not only played the fan-favourite role of Jess Parker in hit ITV and BBC America show Primeval, she has played the role of female lead in 2013 film Jet Stream and will be guest starring in FX's Tyrant in 2014. Connection wise, she is dating actor Theo James and is the sister of Fashion Stylist Mary-Anna Kearney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.68.70.117 (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviewing admin does not do conspiracy theories. Please leave this kind of diatribe for your MySpace. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Irish Actress Ruth Kearney has appeared in a number of television shows and movies including Jet Stream in 2013 as well as 2 seasons of Primeval for which she and the show have a cult following. She is currently working on the highly-publicized FX network show, Tyrant, on which she will have a recurring role. She can be seen talking about Primeval here: ^[1] She was also recently in a commercial for HSBC Bank which can be found here: ^[2] Her IMDB lists a dozen credits as an actress and her agent's website also lists these projects. It can be found here: ^[3] Ruth continues to have a cult following as evidenced by blogs such as this: ^[4] and this: ^[5] Photographs of Ruth attending Comic Con 2011 in San Deigo were featured on Zimbio. ^[6] Sources proving Ruth's role in Jet Stream: ^[7] ^[8] While dating a popular actor might not qualify Ruth Kearney for a Wikipedia page, surely it does not warrant deleting her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mel7190 (talk • contribs)
Keep She is an up-and-coming actress. She should have information available for the roles she has already played and for information on future roles she will receive. If the argument is that her entry should be deleted simply because she has not had many notable roles so far, then why aren't other actors who have not had many notable roles (such as her co-star in Primeval, Ben Mansfield) having their Wikipedia entries up for discussion for deletion? It seems to me, as noted above, that this is stemming from a vendetta of a small faction of people who dislike her simply because of whom she may or may not be involved with romantically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:380:2f5:98ec:2860:ec6c:87a5 (talk • contribs)
Keep She is a young actress who can be seen in multiple projects, including guest spots on TV series (including Covert Affairs and this summer's Tyrant) and a leading role in the UK series Primeval. I can't see that there is any logical reason to delete her page when she has as many credits to her name as many other young actors. Sadly, I agree with the other posters who have pointed out the ill will towards her because of her private life. That is certainly not a valid reason to delete her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.203.204 (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the links listed, I'm sorry to say that they don't add to notability- Zimbio is not reliable, I'm skeptical about "Radio Times", YouTube and Tumblr are not accepted as valid sources, Amazon can't really be used for anything other than release dates of products. I'm also seeing WP:ILIKEIT arguments, which frankly aren't convincing. We're not trying to "deny" or "erase" her existence by listing her article at AFD. What we would need is reliable third-party refs giving significant coverage, and she has not received much coverage from reliable third-party sources. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this & not sure what reliable, third-party sources would be. Zimbio is essentially a photo warehouse, but can't be relied on to say who & where? The you tube is posted by the bank whose commercial she appeared in & the tumblr where posted simply to show she has a cult following even several years after Primeval ended. Her agency posted an announcement of her current work in Tyrant which is airing in the next few weeks on their website & tweeted about it. This is reliable IMO, but not 3rd party. Primeval was pretty popular outside of the USA & still has a following as does Ruth as evidenced by her fans that showed up her as well as a number of websites & blogs. She's a young, working actress.

The tumblr links can't be used because those particular ones are fanpages. Fansites/fanpages are not considered reliable. If it was her own tumblr, it could be deemed reliable but would be a primary source. Primary sources (including interviews) can be used in articles but do not add to notability. Family and friends are not primary sources, but aren't third-party. A third-party ref (in case I wasn't specific enough) is a ref not closely affiliated with subject. For example, sources like Entertainment Weekly or CBS News giving news reports on a person would constitute third-party coverage. I'm not entirely sure why YouTube is generally rejected, but a video clip of a commercial is not exactly coverage on a person. So far, she hasn't got much third-party coverage. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable yet. The amount of SPA and London area based IPs is suspicious, Even the last offering of a RS in the article is who is theos gf, which was the source for her DOB???? And doesnt mention anything other than her age? Not seeing very much here. Murry1975 (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it normal for an actress from a hit UK show to have fans in the London area.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owning an Electric Car[edit]

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

Non-notable book; no third-party references or reviews provided, written like an advertisement. Claims to be a "yearbook", but was never updated past the first year. (If we count a title change, wasn't updated past 2012.) Mikeblas (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims of notability, no reliable sources provided, and no Ghits that would provide notability. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NBOOK; this appears to be a promotion, and not a very good one at that. There doesn't seem to have any notability whatsoever.Jacona (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite legal threats, canvassing, multiple SPAs and other issues, there is consensus that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion at this time. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silviu Mihăilă[edit]

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

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

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

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

I'm already pretty angry with the way this guy's gone about promoting himself: using four accounts (Silviu Alexandru Mihaila, Sebastianandrei, Loyd Sebastian and Martin Harlow), he's persistently removed speedy-deletion tags. The latest is that he tagged my talk page for deletion. Definitely seems to have that opera-diva personality.

Anyway, let's look at the sources he's put up in his autobiography, other than his own website and CV.

Can we agree that this individual doesn't pass any of the relevant policies, that this article should be deleted and he should leave us alone? - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've started the SPI page for the editors here. --Finngall ^talk 13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Due to the deletion notice being deleted multiple times from multiple accounts (possibly all sockpuppets) I have semiprotected the article for a week. Closing admin: if the decision is keep, please unprotect the page when closing. Waggers TALK 14:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Silviu Mihaila is both an incredible singer and a wonderful person. The description offered by Mr. Biruitorul does not match Silviu Mihaila's personality. The delition of this wiki article would be an enourmous mistake. I have seen quite a lot of articles on Wikipedia. This article, in my opinion, is completly acceptable (although some small improvements could be considered). Dany — 2a02:2f09:334f:ffff::4f71:55b0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:26, June 30, 2014‎ (UTC).

Again, personal opinion doesn't help towards notability. Cowlibob (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICIAN --Finngall ^talk 03:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion in life there are 2 kinds of people. The ones who build you up and the ones who tear you down. Most of them are like this " Biruitorul" who doesn't have other occupation just to satisfy his ill-founded trifles and to minimize the work and the up of somebody like Silviu who really love what he's doing and who is truly promising for the future in his field. It is very disappointing to see such narrow mentality and I don't agree with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:622F:FFFF:0:0:4F70:3308 (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — 2A02:2F0E:622F:FFFF:0:0:4F70:3308 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks. Discuss content not the editors, if you feel aggrieved there are other places for that. Repeated attacks can lead to being blocked. WP:PA Cowlibob (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree deleting Silviu's page. He is a very talented singer who worked a lot to be where he is now,he deserves a great career and he must be promoted,so everyone could listen to his wonderful voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.97.87.47 (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — 78.97.87.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Personal opinion doesn't count towards notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a place for advertising. Cowlibob (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's thorough analyses of "sources" used in said article. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only references in third party reliable sources are passing mentions. The subject does not (yet) have sufficient coverage to meet the notability criteria. Waggers TALK 14:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Can't find any significant independent reliable coverage. He may become notable in the future but he isn't right now. Cowlibob (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to poor sourcing, subject to later re-creation or userfication. This singer appears to be up and coming, as noted "truly promising for the future in his field ...", but not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., for what it's worth, my partner sang chorus for Deborah Voigt. I was also attorney for the estate of an operatic baritone. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find a single shred of evidence that Mr. Mihăilă passes any of the GNG guidelines in any field. The "sources" used are laughable, and none other are to be found -- as a Romanian speaker, I've had a glance, just to be sure. For sure Mr. Mihăilă can come back if he has a more notable presence in his field, which is entirely feasible -- he is just beginning his career; but maybe then he will be busy enough to allow someone other than himself to write the entry. Dahn (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "wonderful person" maybe, buy pretty disgraceful behaviour here. Dishonesty gets your nowhere and the threats are pretty pathetic. The subject obviously doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. Suggest consideration be given to salting the title. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. No reliable sources. The only Gnews hit is the subject's website. Considering the puppetry and legal threats, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through each of the sources as well and concur with nom. There is a serious lack of sourcing of any form for the subject of the article, excepting the usual social media sorts. @Sebastianandrei: the issue isn't that he is or isn't a good singer. He could be the next Pavarotti or Bocelli for all we know. Our personal opinions count for nothing. What counts is that there is solid reliable sources that reflect what is written into Wikipedia. Taking your examples of Bieber and Gaga, the reason they have substantial articles is that there is extensive sourcing of them. The important part of the sourcing is that the source devotes substantial coverage to them or are entirely focused on them. If it mentions them in passing, as was the case in 2 of your sources, then that does not count. The other part of the problem is probably that many of the sources which would be considered reliable are in Romanian and would not show in an English only search. Non-english sources are perfectly acceptable in some cases, so if you or perhaps someone from WikiProject Romania are able to obtain such reliable sourcing then there may be a change in consensus. Blackmane (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With a cursory search of Romanian sources, I was able to verify that coverage of Mr. Silviu Mihăilă is lacking there as well. There are a few hits to his facebook account, a self-promotional article he wrote in a local newspaper, some passing mentions, and that's about it. Note that the search overlaps with results for another Silviu Mihăilă, who is a young academic and author of works on literary history (and who has marginal notability, in any case more that the very young opera singer). Puff-piece from a Romanian perspective as well. Dahn (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Ferrante[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet notability and written as a press release Canyouhearmenow 13:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly promotional as well as badly written. Deb (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we can find sources that establish him as the Planet Records founder and successful record producer (an assertion of notability) better than the ones in the article right now (preferably in English). Our article on the label has a few maintenance tags on it, yes, but we've had it for several years now and the creator of the article under discussion, while he has edited the label article, did not create or significantly expand it. "Blatantly promotional and badly written" is not by itself a reason to delete if the subject is nonetheless notable. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with that argument if substantial sources could be found. But in my research I found only information that leads back to pages created by the subject such as Linkedin, Facebook etc. Third party sources are lacking for this subject and I am afraid he simply does not fall into the guidelines for notability. Let us also not forget that this article was deleted once before due to the same arguments.[4]--Canyouhearmenow 14:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Finding these sources was trivial: Billboard, Billboard, Corriere del Mezzogiorno. It would need copyediting for tone and trimming to verifiable facts, but he may be notable. --Michig (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The notability of the subject does not inherit notability from a company that he founded. There are no independent sources that I could find that establish that the subject himself is notable. We require reliable sources about the subject to pass WP:BIO. Note that the article creator has also tried to introduce similar articles onto itwiki (it:Discussioni_utente:Dottorgrasso1988) and is now blocked.- Mr X 16:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More or less the exact same problem as last time it was deleted: sufficient coverage of the record label, but very little about him (except when talking about the label). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:37, 30 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Club[edit]

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

This article is just self promotion. No figures of important exist within the article Kruzelc77 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see this as 'just self-promotion', and that claim is not borne out from the article history, although there appear to have been contributions from some single-purpose accounts. The band has had minor placings on a Billboard chart, and there is some coverage, though perhaps not enough for notability to be convincing, e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8]. --Michig (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BAND with three charted singles and third-party coverage. Eric444 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this review to add to the above coverage but not much else. Combined with the chart appearances, I suppose there's just enough to clear the bar. Gongshow talk 09:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radius Gold[edit]

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

Small gold mining corporation. They have a $10M market cap and have attracted almost no independent press attention. The few mentions are of protests about them, not about the company themselves. Seems to fail all the requisite notability standards. Peripitus (Talk) 12:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability and no reliable sources provided. --Rob (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie Clickers (mobile)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Could not find any sources to establish notability. Found directory/listing type hits in Google, but no substanicial coverage. -- ferret (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) -- ferret (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is just a simple browser game. Non notable, no coverage and no claim of notability. Fails GNG also A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wanted to clarify that this is about a specific mobile game clone of Cookie Clicker. There are many many such clones. This AFD is not about the original browser game, which has clear notability. -- ferret (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable game with no coverage by reliable sources. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, in large part. Note: I suspect one or two participants were mentally searching for WP:BIO1E, but that correction would not have affected the result. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Simmons (bus driver)[edit]

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

Proded as non-notable, prod removed by article creator with no reason. Short-lived local news story, cannot see how this individual passes WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It doesn't even rise to to the level of WP:ONEEVENT. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Delete per WP:1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and who knows what else – I can speak with some authority about the early days of the People Mover and some of the people involved. Bill Barnes, who helped organize the system, was known throughout Alaska for his civic and political activism during his retirement. Among drivers, Norbert Skinner served a term in the Alaska House of Representatives during the 1960s while working at Clear Air Force Station. "Singin'" Sam McDole drove the Mountain View route for years and years, repeatedly singing "King of the Road" and a few other songs to his passengers. This garnered him some publicity and he also released recordings, including an album recorded in Nashville. Dave Alward was noted as a member of a Matanuska Valley Colony family. Several others were celebrities-of-sorts to the People Mover constituency, but probably not worth mentioning here. OTOH, I have no recollection of this person or the incident. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear failure of the rules against one event, although I think those mainly apply to BLPs, which this is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Jim Carter ^(talk) 11:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Local man who did good and did well, but we are not designed for this type of listing. Regretfully, delete. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG as the subject of multiple pieces of independently-published coverage. Piece is well-sourced out and suitably comprehensive. It is not our place to argue whether someone or something was "important enough" for inclusion, only to rule on whether sufficient published sources exist to support a verifiable article. This meets this criterion. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL & WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:BLP1E, et al. SW3 5DL (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - The article needs tidying up alot but notability is there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Webber[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails WP:ANYBIO. Johny 547 (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't know what the author was thinking about, but this is evidently very poorly sourced indeed, relying extensively on an interview in a music blog, but also record slevenotes, a press release and other unreliable sources. If he's "Best known as the co-founder of ticket management company CrowdSurge" then I don't know how people found out, because I can't find any reliable, independent coverage about this. The only saving grace is the LA Times article which, though primarily about music firm, SQE, at least has a small amount of background info about Webber. Sionk (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the creator, I'd like to address the nominators concerns re "fails WP:ANYBIO". The specifics are: "(1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. (2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" In regards (1), was listed in Billboards 2010 "30 under 30". In regards (2) quoting the LA Times SQE's first big coup was landing Webber. He left his position as the vice president of A&R for the U.K.-based XL Recordings to helm the firm. Billboard had even named Webber one of its "30 Under 30" music-biz stars in 2010 for his regional scouting acumen for XL. But after working on Adele and M.I.A.'s A&R teams and cosigning Odd Future's Tyler, the Creator to the label.... or the mentions in Billboard magazine re his original joining to XL Recordings or his promotion to VP of A&R for XL Recordings. Then lets not forget that in 2011 he sells out his shares to Blavatnik in noted app CrowdSurge, valuing the company at $30M (one of the reasons he was nominated "30under30") Ref from Recess LLC, noted music/entrepreneur event. To address Sionk concern re CrowdSurge, I added the Companies House ref (NOTE: behind a paywall which I have access to. I dislike using them, hence why I added another ref re Adele from an accessible site over saying "see album notes"). In total there are now 13 references going back to 2007, creating 38 cites, including the photographic excerpt from the Steve Agello interview at Rolling Stone magazine where in the (behind paywall access) text he expands on Webber's management at Size Records. I am more than willing to listen to any promotional concerns, and have in light of this feedback toned down the article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being on a list of 30 people isn't a "well-known and significant award or honor". Neither does a government company listing demonstrate that this company has any note (or indeed if it is the same Seb Webber). The only question is whether the snippets of news/photo interviews are significant enough for WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I listened and reacted. You see "30under30" as non-significant, but accept that he may pass under WP:GNG. I'll respect that, but note that Billboard in the music world is not an also-ran publication, and nor do they publish 30under30 more than once a year - plus how many Brits get on it? Secondly re CrowdSurge, that "government listing" paperwork (fully court authorised in the UK, so a highly reliable source) shows up Benjamin Bronfman as a second stage investor. Thirdly I added two extra refs re CrowdSurge and TicketMaster, and then an FT ref re Blavatnik's buy in (latter pretty short, but there). Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is reasonably well referenced, but could be improved, and I believe is sufficiently notable to have a wikipedia page Waynejayes (talk · contribs) Wayne Jayes 15:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does seem to get enough mentions in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator withdraws AFD as Snowball and closes discussion per WP:CLOSEAFD.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)))[reply]

Jim Bartels[edit]

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

I don't believe this subject has significant coverage. I believe the reliable sources are very limited and just from the initial arguments made, seems to be almost all newspaper coverage and does not pass the criteria for multiple sources. The last part of this I believe is also a concern that there may be a presumption of notability due to what one believes to be significant coverage in one particular medium, while there may be a presumption of notability it is not guaranteed.

After a review of the links left by the editor to attempt to demonstrate notability, I am convinced this does not pass criteria. Many of the links are doubles of the same story and only one is detailed about the subject himself. The Google book search only resulted in a single page on my browser and the scholar search only showed three results. I believe this article fails notability for a stand alone and should have the relevant content merged to the Iolani Palace article and Washington Place article.

Support a merge and delete for the above stated reasons.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Message to other editors: See my arguments on Talk:Jim Bartels. Thanks!--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure; slightly leaning towards keep, but maybe merge would be better

If this article is deleted on these grounds, the one on Jack Agnew definitely should get the ax. Although I'm not keen on obitu-articles and the like, at least this guy actually, documented-ly did the things stated. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fair comparison as that figure you linked was notable enough to have inspired a movie about him and others. Mr. Bartels did the things stated, but are they accomplishments notable for a stand alone?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been found, it was on the front page today (June 30), he's notable enough. Busy Moose (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if that would be brought up, and technically that should not have been accepted for DYK as there was a copyright issue still there after it passed. See the article history. The sources that were found can be distilled down to two events, his death and the throne incident that seems to be the most noteworthy event and seems to be based on criticism of a living person and could violate BLP policy.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately sourced and seems to have easily done enough to be notable. If this person fails notability there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of others who would fail more positively. PRL42 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't like this article, either, but multiple articles in The Honolulu Advertiser seems to meet WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, the criteria speaks directly to the situation of multiple sources from one medium like newspapers where the stories are repeated and this is the case here. Really, only two events are represented in those sources as stated above. This may well be borderline as Piledhigheranddeeper mentions so it may well go either way, but I feel that the article was treating the subjects unfairly and the article was not neutral. I am surprised that passed so easily but I think the novelty of what was being noted over shadowed the more POV direction the article had originally taken. Not sure if this can be expanded much and if AFD fails I can't help but think this article will likely be nominated again by someone else in the future.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are sufficient to establish his significance in the discipline of Hawaiian history. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AFD nomination as Snowball. KAVEBEAR. Could Fram or another admin, please close. Thanks for the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CLOSEAFD the nominator can withdraw and close the AFD. Cool.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Collins[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. This is just an obituary. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My computer won't let me access most of the sources, but all of the sources seem to be obituaries and there's nothing to show he's notable as a martial artist since consensus has always been that martial arts halls of fame are insufficient to show notability. He was honored by NASA for saving lives during an accident, but doesn't that fall under WP:BLP1E? Papaursa (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting people out of a dangerous area is certain a good thing, but there's nothing else notable. I see problems with WP:OBIT and BLP1E.Mdtemp (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zyvonzek Vjesalicu[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top or second tier fights despite the hyperbole. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no first or second tier MMA fights, she's not close to meeting WP:NMMA. She also lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet the GNG. Mice never shop (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pretty clear that the deletes have it, on policy reasons. As a self-standing article it serves no purpose, and lacks a rationale for existence. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English and French monarchs overlap chart[edit]

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

This seems to me like trivia. Feedback ^☎ 03:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this seems to me to be a comparative resource related to the history of two powerful European nations. If anything it might be expanded if neighbouring nations had monarchs at the time. Gregkaye (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be talking about a different article if you want something of a larger scope. An side-by-side list of English and French monarchs is just trivia/cruft/content forking. Feedback ^☎ 00:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy It's unsourced and only has value in the chart. This material belongs as a an article spun off from France–United Kingdom relations. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing would be trivial from any of the many history books and articles on Anglo-French relations. Unless you believe the information is substantially incorrect, it's irrelevant to deletion. And why are you saying it belongs as a spin-off but wanting to delete it? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it is utterly harmless and someone may fiond it useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inaccurate cruft. Srnec (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is more than just a side-by-side list of English and French monarchs, the information on wars and marriages is helpful in understanding the changing relationship between these nations without having to read through text heavy articles. Expand with more useful historical context. NoSeptember 01:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or repurpose. As a singular table, it serves no purpose other than trivia. As a part of a narrative of the British/French long-standing feud or France-United Kingdom relations, it might be very useful indeed.--Coin945 (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for a separate article. Perhaps the table/information can be repurposed, as suggested, in an article such as France-United Kingdom relations though. Sotakeit (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless trivia. It doesn't really provide any useful information because monarchs weren't always driving forces behind foreign politics anyway (as the list tries to imply), and dynasties weren't particularly closely related either.--Staberinde (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Caswell[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources beyond local news mentioning her as a high school alumna. Content largely not based on provided sources. Huon (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way far from passing notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though I am not yet ready to recommend "keep", a Google Books search shows many mentions to her over many years, some verifying her as a backup singer for major performers. The snippet view shows what may possibly be significant coverage in this book. I think further study is warranted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mentions appear to be trivial. Does not meet GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems mainly promotional, no real claim to notability per WP:MUSICBIO presented in the article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note: Every one of the folks who participated mentioned there might be some limited content worth holding onto for upmerging, I'll be happy to provide a reference copy of the article to anyone who'd like to make editorial improvements to the parent article. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References in On the Road[edit]

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

This is a list of miscellaneous items, such as cars and films, mentioned in On the Road. The only source being a 1997 Penguin reprint of the novel.Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." There are no explanations or independent sources, simply the miscellaneous lists with no commentary. Per WP:PRIMARY, we should "not base an entire article on primary sources" - this is a list of items selected from one primary source, with no clear rationale of why the items were selected. Per WP:TRIVIA we should "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." The page appears to violate two policies and one guideline.

Potentially useful aspects of the page, such as tracing the journeys described in the book, can be created using reliable sources and included in the On the Road article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an encyclopedic article and not supported by reliable sources. Whatever is needed can be upmerged into the article on the book.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above, this should not be its own article. However, the inclusionist in me would like to retain some of this information if it can be verified - would there be any objection to putting it in some nested collapsible tables or something in the main article? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete – filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DBR Records(Stephen Milano)[edit]

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

This label seams to lack WP:Notability (WP:NORG). Google search return just 10 hits [9]. No reliable sources to prove Notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. This press release does not merit conversion to a proper article. Offers no sourcing other than firm's own website. Essentially zero RS coverage, let alone anything substantial. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant hoax. Not listed in FIDE ratings at all, let alone as GM. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giridhar Murali[edit]

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

The person seams unnotable. Google returns some hits [10], but almost all are result lists, no significant coverage. The sources given in the article either just mention the subject in passing, or do not mention him at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a hoax. Could probably be speedied. He claims grandmaster, but the sources show that not only is he not a grandmaster, but he is actually quite a weak player by competitive standards (playing in an U1400 section means you aren't even allowed to have a FIDE rating, which is used for titles like "grandmaster"). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: I proposed CSD as blatant hoax. Not sure it'll stick though, as chess titles/ratings/claims may be too niche to be "blatant." --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For anyone so inclined, here is his USCF profile. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:03, 30 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.