< 12 May	14 May >

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Santis[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Senior media creative[edit]

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

"Senior Media Creative" is a marketing neologism and refers to a very specific position at a company that is not necessarily consistent across multiple companies. Hustlecat (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says it's comparable to the rank of Creative director which has its own article, so I can't see any need for this (assuming that claim is true - in which case a redirect might be called for). I can't see any sources saying this is anything other than being like a media creative but more senior. (It's true that we have articles like senior lecturer but I think that's a bit dubious too, since it could easily be covered under lecturer.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP to Creative director. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I believe the keep arguments have been answered convincingly, and everybody with the exception of the article creator agrees to delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fisher (Businessman)[edit]

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

Politician who has never held elected office and has not received significant coverage outside of a single event (the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial election). Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable candidate. If he wins the primary, then we can reconsider. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I worked very hard on this article and he is running in the election and he should have his own article just like the rest of the candidates running. This page really shouldn't even be considered to be deleted.Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for your wasted work, but we don't include articles on the basis of how much work went into them. You should have read the notability guidelines first, in particular WP:NPOL, where you would have found that Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I'm not seeing the references in the article amounting to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," (note that Republican party publications are not likely to be considered independent, reliable secondary sources for coverage of one of their candidates - nor would Democratic party publications, for that matter). If you think this should stay, you'll need to show that such significant coverage exists. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these people wanting the article deleted are not even from Massachusetts. When I first used Wikipedia back in 2005 there was less strict rules and the website was less strict than it is now. Just because he's never held public office doesn't mean anything he still deserves an article. Wikipedia is just too strict now and no one this website can create an article anymore. I disagree with everyone who wants it deleted. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not designed to promote candidacies. This man is not notable unless elected. Most of the other candidates hold or have already held offices that qualify them for inclusion. Those that do or have not should also be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well as long as Joseph Avellone still has a page than Mark Fisher should too. They are in the same boat on having articles on Wikipedia. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about article X? comes under arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Avellone gets some reliable source coverage aside from just running for office. The Mark Fisher article does not cite any. I'm not 100% convinced that Avellone is notable, but notability needs to be judged on each article's individual merits. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Avellone is also nominated for deletion and I have argued it, also should be deleted. GoldenRing (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL - A candidate for office without significant independent coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Sorry, Plyjacks, but I used to be an inclusionist, too. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should be ashamed wanting this article deleted as should everyone else, if they think it isn't fit right they should fix it themselves instead of being critical. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe issue isn't the quality of the article, but the notability of the subject. If there is no significant coverage, he is not notable, something beyond fixing by an editor.TheLongTone (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you because I've seen many false facts on Wikipedia in the past and some now as well. Your facts aren't strait either. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- PLEASE go and read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Understand that it applies to this situation. GoldenRing (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On May 16, 2014 in the noon time I updated the article and added five more sources and some more important facts in the media. I was asked to improve the article and I finally did, It looks a lot better than it did before and it has more proven sources. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edits don't fix the main problem. This is a biography of one event, running for office. The citation you added about Fisher's background is not reliable. The others are yet more coverage of his run for office. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as the nominator states. All RS coverage comes from the 2014 election. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the article is written, he does not seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN or other notability requirements. Jersey92 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jesus Film Project. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena: Released from Shame[edit]

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

I guess this is noteworthy, but the "article" is a tragedy. candidate for WP:TNT. The Banner talk 22:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete. Agreed, even if it's "First lunch in USA on the 1 March 2007." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Has been entirely rewritten. Strike through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in doubt now. The new version is indeed a proper article but the question about the notabitity make me doubt about withdrawing or not. The Banner talk 19:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This could probably be redirected to Campus Crusade for Christ, as this was a film they released as part of a specific project. I found a mention in a book of it being related to them, although the book does seem to be a primary source since it was written by someone who is affiliated with them. It's mostly just there to verify that this was related to them. I do see where it says it won a Dove award and if this is so, that would probably help push it to notability in and of itself, since that's one of the biggest awards that the Christian world can bestow. But so far I'm leaning towards a merge/redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also found where it's still being shown today as a missionary tool, although I don't know if that would really count as it having a re-release or a wide release. Schmidt would probably be able to tell us if that would help count towards notability in other ways. I'm sort of unsure that this really counts under that, to be honest. I am finding some reviews in Christian periodicals and papers, so it does have that going for it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the award was actually a review. I was wondering, since the name "Dove Award" is typically used for music releases. It may be that the Williams song was nominated, but I'm not finding anything to really back that up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tokyogirl79... The Dove Foundation is an organization that reviews and awards Christian films for their Christian demographic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are the GMA Dove Awards, which are music based and what it led to. I did think that TDF did do awards, but I can't really find the actual award name and it's not really listed on TDF's review for the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/redirect. I'm sort of halfsies on this one. I found one award that looks to be minor and not really something that would go towards notability, but I did find a few reviews and an article. I also found where it still being shown occasionally in theaters, as well as evidence that it's used as a missionary tool. It's kind of a tenuous keep and I won't really argue if it ends up getting deleted. At the very least there should be a section in the main article for the CCfC for this project, even if it's just a few sentences. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was definitely part of the Jesus film project, as it used film from the original movie, so we could probably stretch this a little and just merge some data into the page for the JFP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If all else fails, there is a section for the film now at Jesus_Film_Project#Magdalena:_Released_from_Shame. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge and redirect to Jesus Film Project. There is just not enough here to meet WP:MOVIE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jesus Film Project. Doing several searches I just can't find that notability of this as such to warrant its own article per Ad Orientem. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no assertion of notability; probably also a11, made up by article creator. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WORLD BLUE-VIOLET MOVEMENT - CONTENANT[edit]

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

This movement does not fulfill the Notability criteria. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A11) by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbonism: The blending of bourbon whiskey and tourism[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this concept is notable enough. It seems to me that it is just a joke made by a person, and it does not deserve to have it's own encyclopedic article. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse in Vietnam[edit]

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

Not a notable short. Not an official Disney cartoon JDDJS (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I originally voted merge, but I’m changing my vote to a keep due to the extensive coverage and amble number of sources found by Arxiloxos. A keep outcome is completely justified. Also, here is a more recent source from the Huffington Post [1], which should demonstrate that the film has received coverage from a wide frame of time. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Time and paywalls have eroded access to the sources of the day, but searches show (in snippets, unfortunately) that this legendary bit of agitprop was covered at the time it was made [2][3][4] (and it won at least one award [5]); was remembered later on [6][7]; and received substantial international coverage when it was rediscovered.[8][9][10][11][12][13]. The writeups are mostly brief because—well, because it's a one-minute short about Mickey going to 'Nam and quickly getting his head blown off—but it's a significant artifact of the antiwar movement, and a memorable work by the unquestionably notable Milton Glaser as well as by the possibly notable W. Lee Savage (he doesn't have an article but there's coverage [14] and his work has been collected by the Smithsonian [15]). While I appreciate the merge suggestion, I think there's enough here to support a separate entry. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I completely missed those. I've changed my vote to a keep accordingly, as this article has more than enough coverage to justify a keep. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage meeting inclusion criteria. And JDDJS... not being an official Disney film is not one of our deletion rationales. There is no shame in a withdrawal. Cheers, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination was withdrawn with no contrary opinions expressed. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motithang higher secondary school[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL as the sources are all from the school itself or from the local area the school is in Palmtree5551 (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by Nominator I seem to be misunderstanding consensus notability policies here (as pointed out by several editors on this discussion) and thus I should never have nominated this for deletion Palmtree5551 (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school exists,[16] and by general consensus, secondary schools are notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not comfortable with the speed with which this school has been nominated, a few hours after creation, and there is no evidence of WP:BEFORE due diligence. We have precious few articles on schools in Bhutan and it is not surprising that sources have yet to be identified. We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in such parts of Asia. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary school, kept by long-standing consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (G7) by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 01:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cryonisists[edit]

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

Page has little information and is not notable. Ike1x (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Crispin[edit]

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

Does not appear notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources massively fail WP:RS. A Google failed to yield anything that rings the notability bell. Article feels promotional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real sources. A small claim of notability that is not sourced. --Rob (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found nothing online. Willing to change my mind if better sourcing can be shown from deeper in the Internet. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NawlinWiki, CSD G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth shankar[edit]

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

This article presents it's subject as a financier of Mafia, yet there are no reliable sources. The only source cited that actually mention his name ([17]) says nothing of a kind. By the way, I dispute his WP:Notability as I can't find reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed most of the article text as it is unsourced and appears to make allegations, against WP:BLP policy. AllyD (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G-10. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sentinelese language[edit]

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

This has to be one of the weirder articles I've come across, about a language that is presumed to be spoken by a presumably small number of people and is presumed to fall into some language family, though nobody really knows. The only concrete information is that some other people don't understand it, whatever it is, if it even exists. Looking at the citations I'm not seeing much more than passing references which affirm the lack of knowledge. It's hard to say how we can (at least implicitly) claim that a language exists when all that we can say about it is that nobody knows anything about it that isn't speculation. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Andamanese languages. There is a little content that can be reliably sourced, but not much. — goethean 22:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Merger would be appropriate, deletion is not. If it is merged, the resulting article should probably be moved to "Sentinelese". — kwami (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Sentinelese is only presumed to be related to or part of the Andamanese languages, what sense would a merger make? I'm inclined to think there is a case for keeping the article, though I'm not yet voting either way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Nicoleño language, or Cimmerian language. When a language is scarcely attested, and we have a non-stub article on the people, it's not unusual for us to cover the language with the people. There's usually enough info on a language to warrant splitting it off as a separate article, and often we don't even have an article on the people, but there are exceptions. — kwami (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was actually a reply to Goethean: I was trying to point out why Andamanese languages isn't necessarily an ideal merge target. If there's an article on the Sentinelese people, it might be a good merge target, but personally I'd rather see the article kept (again, this isn't yet a vote). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I'm now thinking maybe the precedents you cite may indicate another and better way to resolve this. But I think that "The Sentinelese people speak an unknown language presumed to be related to Ongan languages, though on the two occasions that Onge individuals were taken to the island, they could not understant the language spoken there" is far better than a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a linguistic curiosity with few parallels, there are sources about it – even if they can hardly do more than speculate, it's routinely included in treatments of the Andamanese languages – and it's got ISO 639-3 and Glottolog codes. Andreas JN 466 04:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andreas. We have lots of articles at WP:ODD, including the article about these people. I recall that sometimes we've merged the language or dialect into the people or clan, or vice versa. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andreas. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I'm understanding correctly, the nominator seems to be implying that we can't be sure the language exists, which is simply not true: people have heard the Sentinelese speak, and whatever they were speaking was the Sentinelese language. This article also provides sourced information about the language: the fact that Onge speakers cannot understand it and a hypothesis about what language family it might be part of. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Avellone[edit]

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

Subject's business career has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. He has received some coverage as a candidate in the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, but nothing significant outside of this single event. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Joe Avellone was the subject of media intrigue during the 1990's due to his involvement in HMO Blue through Blue Cross. Also, his political career expands further than the Massachusetts Gubernatorial election in 2014. Avellone was a senior advisor to Paul Tsongas, and served as an advisor to Gary Hart, John Kerry, and Edward Kennedy on their respective Presidential Campaigns. Pbruce1110 (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, as the Gubernatorial election is ongoing, it would be poor form to rush to delete this page . That being said, it stands for debate whether a political campaign can be viewed as a "single event" as defined by guidelines. The Massachusetts gubernatorial process consists of caucuses, a convention, primaries, and a general election, each of which has historical significance. Pbruce1110 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - WP:NPOL is clear that standing for office does not give notability. Absent reliable, independent secondary sources giving significant coverage, notability is not established. Of the sources listed, I'm basically seeing one article at the Washington Times - otherwise there is a single paragraph about him in Time, a sort of CV at Businessweek and a few non-independent sources. I don't think this cuts it. GoldenRing (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assertion that WP:NPOL is clear that seeking office does not mandate notoriety. In fact, according to WP:POLOUTCOMES, the community has traditionally accepted candidates seeking office, while "(l)osing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." Also, along with an article in the Washington Post, there are at least two independent news sources listed documenting his Gubernatorial run, and one discussing his involvement in Blue Cross' HMO program as a healthcare professional, a Big Five healthcare company of which Avellone was a Chief Executive. This qualifies as a "second event" of notability. Pbruce1110 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you like; nonetheless, the policy is clear: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". As a candidate for political office, he is not notable unless there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All that any of the sources at the article say is that he is running, along with some non-independent regurgitation of information in his press releases and website. This is not significant coverage in the secondary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - the above comment got mixed up with another AfD. What I meant to say is that the references that have been added in the last day only talk about his candidature; this does not amount to notability apart from the fact he is running. GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph in Time Magazine and a quote in an article about HMOs does not demonstrate previous notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree that this article is lacking, but in no way is the subject not notible. Avellone is known through Boson as an activist for reform of substance abuse treatment in a capacity unrelated to his political aspirations. I suggest expansion of an article that is not thorough enough, not deletion due to lack of effort from the community. I also have to agree that seeking office does not qualify as one event, and general policy is to delete articles of office-seekers if they do not win the election. As long as an individual is in consideration for a statewide office, the person in question is of note. I suggest a furlough of this debate until the ballot is set, which if I am not mistaken will take place on June 14th. If Avellone does not make the ballot, the article must be deleted. If he does, it is irresponsible to delete this page. Jjgaybrams (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)— Jjgaybrams (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The relevant policy for whether politicians are notable or not is WP:NPOL. It states that candidates for office are not notable unless there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If that coverage is there, then you should provide links to it; if that coverage is not there, then the article should be deleted. We don't create articles because the subject might become notable, and such articles are routinely deleted; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh per WP:BARE. He might just make it over the limit. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - If everyone wants my article on Mark Fisher deleted so bad then this article should be deleted then too. They are just about the same. There article are very much a like.Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not an appropriate reason to vote for an article to be deleted. Tiller54 (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They are actually both running for Governor of Massachusetts in the 2014 election with almost about the same experience. So there actually is. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it isn't. 2 different candidates in the same election do not automatically have the same level of notability. Tiller54 (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for trying to compare articles and I will keep the article on Mark Fisher I created out of this. However, the Massachusetts democratic party is strong and with Juliette Kayyem, Steve Grossman and especially a big name is Massachusetts like Martha Coakley. Coakley is a huge front runner right now with about almost 44% more percentage than others and Joseph Avellone only has 1% in the polls tells you something. I just don't think this guy will make it as successfully and as well as Martha Coakley will and again I state it has nothing to do with the article I created on Mark Fisher, nothing. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's notable for his business career and his run for governor. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 05:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The run for governor specifically does not make him notable. If he is notable for his business career, then we need significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'm not seeing it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology in the Bible[edit]

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

The article has no reliable sources, so far as I can tell, and all but the most trivial background material appears to be completely unsourced original research, which has not been published hither to now.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, of course.

This isn't quite a hoax - I'm sure the person who wrote it believes it - but I do think it comes mostly under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a hoax. The unreliable sources and SYN/OR violations has to go. QuackGuru (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. --RaiderAspect (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Complete WP:BULLOCKS. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can see a case being made for astrology and the Bible (references to it in the Bible, how the Bible may impact it, etc), since there does seem to be some stuff out there for this, although I'll admit that the majority of it could be seen as trivial and/or unreliable. ([18], [19], [20], [21]) The Bible code is a good example of something that wasn't explicitly stated in the Bible per se, but did gather a big following. However the issue here is that this is pretty much someone's personal synthesis and would need to be re-written and/or sourced better. I think that there is merit in this subject, but this particular version isn't really the answer. It's better written than some of the OR stuff out there, but it does need some heavy editing and I'll be honest that this would be a pretty big undertaking as a whole because there's so much to wade through out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, though, that's basically a different subject than this article. It's unlikely that a single claim made in the current article would actually make it into that theoretical one. And we also have an article, Christianity and astrology, that seems a much more fertile ground for improvement, and which could easily subsume this topic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been trying to find the time to resurrect the 'Astrotheology' article. It's actually a giant field of study in the Catholic church. If anyone has the time to look into that and adjust the article, the world would be a happier place. Alas, this is not that, and the world remains the same. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I'd vote to keep an article based on serious academic sources. The various website presented here aren't reliable, and we have to be careful of religious websites, because people will believe passionately and evangelise about their beliefs in all sorts of things generally regardless of whether those things are supported or unsupported by evidence. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; whatever residue may be left without the self-published sources, OR, & synthesis can be merged into Christianity and astrology—or maybe Solar deity, which seems to be a major topic here despite the lack of demonstrated (or even argued) connection to the purported subject. I agree that there could well be a respectable article under this title, but it would have to be based primarily on the work of textual scholars, theologians, archæoethnologists, & so on.—Odysseus 1479 02:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per many others for SYN/OR. GoldenRing (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per nom, as a plausible search term, to Christianity and astrology, as suggested. This also violates WP:FORK as being one view of the topic. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting topic, but no reliable sources. The article seems to be based almost exclusively on the findings of one website of unknown and dubious credibility. I would recommend to the author(s) to cite more academic sources and include findings in the Christianity and astrology article. CoffeeGiraffe (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is it chock full of synth and OR, but it's synth and OR about a fringe theory, which is written like a pamphlet from an astrologer's storefront. It's like someone was trying to see how many policies they could break in one article without resorting to cursing or gibberish. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Strauss[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO - I can't find any significant secondary coverage. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A minor television news figure. The article reads like a CV. GoldenRing (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy, and the mentions in the sources, such as they are, are pretty trivial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acorn Mountain Park[edit]

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

Forced Afd. PROD was contested and does not qualify for an A7. It fails the general notability guideline and appears to not be notable in its own right. Tutelary (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had the same findings as Ken Gallager, who noted in an edit [22] that this "doesn't appear to be an official park; can not find any mention of such park other than on user pages; not convinced this is any more than an informal trail network". There's a couple of blogspot pages that mention this, and that's all I can find. Is possibly WP:MADEUP. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the creator of this article has now also created another brief unsourced article, Rock Park at Acorn Mountain. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For lack of notability. I presume the author is in good faith asserting it exists, but I see no press coverage or travel guide coverage *at all* of his park.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all notability tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

16 Symbols[edit]

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

Non-notable company. References amount to an article written by the company's CEO (but not an article actually about the company), and a self-published Crunchbase listing. Speedy deletion removed by brand new editor. (I smell a sock, but that's a matter for a different venue.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs some edits but i think deletion would not be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstdit (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 19:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I found no news coverage in English. --Finngall ^talk 20:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has coverage in English. Kindly check the references. user:jstdit — Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As has been pointed out before, the references are not reliable sources and do not establish notability. Jstdit is strongly urged to read the policy about reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to pass WP:ORG, no evidence of notability.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 03:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Supplied sources fail certainly WP:CORPDEPTH. Dolescum (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable Company with 3rd party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.172.134.218 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @110.172.134.218: Please enlighten us as to which of the sources listed complies with Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. None of the sources on the article do, as far as I can tell, but I'd be interested in being proven wrong if you have specific points to make. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calsahara[edit]

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

I've found a few wikis and other user-generated content pages that establish that this micronation exists, but no significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gimme a break! This comes close to being a hoax. Certainly this "kingdom" exists only on the internet, in content generated by its "king". Nuke it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Berger[edit]

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

No visible notability; possible self-promotion; moved for deletion in ru-wiki. Prokurator11 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Prokurator11 (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of RS. GoldenRing (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Ortiz El Buen Samaritano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion of a nonnotable psychic. The corresponidng article in Spanish wikipedia (where criteria for notability are less stingent) was deleted 2 years ago. Nothing improved since previous AfD. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability requirements.--Staberinde (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Doll[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Previously deleted uncontroversially (but some years ago) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Diamond The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLPs require much better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominators accurate assessment,there is nothing to indicate notability. Finnegas (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was histories merged. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enaction[edit]

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

This article primarily concerns Enactive interfaces and that content already has been placed on the new page Enactive interfaces. The remainder concerns Enactivism and already has been moved to Enactivism. Consequently there is no further reason for this page. These actions are an outgrowth of an analysis of these articles by MachineElf1735, Bob K31416, Snowded, and Brews_ohare. Brews ohare (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves or delete Enactive interfaces and do a proper move to "Enactive interface".—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Articles for deletion/Enaction (philosophy).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The approach I have taken will work just fine. If you want to use a different approach and re-do all the work involved in transferring material to two different articles, then you do it. I am not going to try again to implement the plan decided upon. Brews ohare (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reasons provided are clear: the article is redundant having had all its content moved to Enactive interfaces and Enactivism. Brews ohare (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus. We should decide on the talk page how to fix Brews' mess.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maanikya. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ranya (actress)[edit]

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

So far no films-just an upcoming film-now while it is likely that she can have a page in the future-for now it seems too soon. Wgolf (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-A redirect can be useful for her right now as well. While I do think a page for an upcoming person could be interesting, it still falls under too soon. Wgolf (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge - too soon for its own page. Bali88 (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maanikya GoldenRing (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Beech (politician)[edit]

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

Unsuccessful politician. May be a vanity page, or hoax. No evidence this meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Softdelete - not a hoax. Unfortunately, the online references don't provide WP:SIGCOV and the ones without URLs can't be checked. Given the nature of this person I'm inclined to assume they do not, unless proven otherwise. If this is deleted, no objection to re-creation if significant coverage from reliable, independent sources is found. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a caveat. This is not a hoax, but we don't keep articles about unsuccessful candidates unless there's clear evidence of notability, and while his entertaining activities on behalf of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party do get a bit of coverage here and there, it's not enough for a separate article. The caveat is that maybe some bits of this could be merged to the party's article, although at first look I didn't see anything that was an obvious candidate for such a merger.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might very generously refer to WP:TOOSOON but almost certainly that won't apply. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable perennial candidate. Tiller54 (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per longstanding consensus at AfD for unelected politicians. Carrite (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not at all notable, as a politician. Maqist (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pale-breasted[edit]

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

This dab lists only partial title matches, which are proscribed from inclusion on dab pages by the relevant guideline. A large batch of such dabs was deleted in 2011, and this one probably should've gone too. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also this RfD for further discussion. What I would like to reiterate from there is that a reasonable editor could remove the partial title matches and tag this page with ((db-disambig)). --BDD (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speedyable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove all the content from a page while it is being discussed at AFD. None of the entries needing disambiguation is a valid reason to suggest the page should be deleted, but other people need to see the content to make their own decisions (while they can look at the history, not everyone will think to do so). The page certainly isn't speedyable as having no content, as it had content until you removed the content. Calathan (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove all of the content. I remove the entries from a disambiguation page that would be removed from any disambiguation page per the disambiguation page guidelines. I then removed the disambiguation page tag, since it was not a disambiguation page. This is why it was speedyable and prodable -- once cleaned, it has no content. Since those avenues inexplicably did not yield the correct result, we're at AfD, but that doesn't mean we can't clean up the page per the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD here is the solution to the page being a disambiguation page with no entries that need disambiguation. Turning it into a page with nothing but a "see also" link clearly isn't fixing the page in any way, as such a page also shouldn't exist. You weren't fixing anything by making that edit, and edits like that make it harder to have a legitimate discussion since some people will look at the page and not realize that it previously had other content. Also, the speedy deletion criterion A3 clearly isn't for deleting articles that do have content, even if you think all that content is bad. The prod of the article was entirely appropriate though. Calathan (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it exactly the way it would be fixed if it were tagged with ((disambiguation cleanup)). ((db-disambig)) G6 criteria apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only partial match entries. This one's for the birds. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bikini#Bikini_tan as the only thing this title could refer to without being a partial title match. Neelix (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No MOS:DABMENTION of "pale-breasted" there. The reader would be better served by reaching the search result (which is what will happen once this page is deleted) -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source to that article so that the required (and relevant) mention is there. It seems preferable to me to direct the reader to something that is not a partial title match rather than to leave them to the search results which will primarily give them partial title matches. Neelix (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the assumption that someone entering "pale-breasted" into the search box is thinking about bikini tans? It seems to me more useful to take them directly to the search results. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of an article that would turn up in the search results that would be more likely intended target. Neelix (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and snow delete Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A1 - no content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 08:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the entries need disambiguation. I don't see a good reason to redirect this anywhere. Calathan (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. (Thanks for linking the relevant guidelines, BDD; that made this an easy call). Agyle (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Tulaev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonnotable Russian white supremacist. Zero significant coverage in independent sources. Let numerous references not fool you. NOthing imrpved since previous nominations. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The first nomination was falsely closed as no-consensus by a non-admin. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about "falsely"; both previous closes don't look very controversial. But they were both closed as no-consensus by non-admins after repeated re-lists with very few comments. I suggest we not do that again this time: let's please keep it open until enough comments have registered to make consensus or its lack more clear (regardless of whether it takes more than two re-lists) and to avoid the appearance of impropriety let's make sure the close is by an actual admin this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have fixed the title of this nomination and have repaired links from the article and AFD log. "(2 nomination)" now redirects here. Stalwart111 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. There's no independent reliable sources that make out the subject's notability. The keep votes in previous nominations never addressed that point but only made assertions. I hope the closing admin notes that. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had nominated this before, there are simply not enough sources to show notability or sustain an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not meet WP:RS and WP:BLP. Specifically, of the sources in this version, sources 1, 4, 6, and 15 appear to be biased sources (split between white supremacist and anti-racist sources), 2 and 7 do not appear reliable, 3 is the subject's own site, 5, 9, and 10 appear to be reliably published but mention the subject only trivially, 8 is one of his publishers' web site and has only a trivial mention, and 11-14 and 16 are deadlinks and appear to be another of his publishers' web sites. That leaves nothing that we can use as the basis for an article or to show notability. And the past history of AfDs for this article leaves me unwilling to give it the benefit of the doubt that better sources can be turned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After eight days, nobody has stepped forward to attempt to fix an article that is such a mess of poor sourcing, nor even to state affirmatively that it must be kept. One editor's comments falls into the category of what about x?. In seven years as an editor, I have not heard of anyone arguing that UFO articles in (fill in the nation) is per se notable; rather, WP:FRINGE specifically precludes such a conclusion. Please see WP:REFUND if anyone wants to try at some time in the future to bring this back. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in Iraq[edit]

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

No reliable sources found indicating this UFO rumor is notable. Brief mention here [23] in context of misidentification of drones. Article entirely based on WP:FRINGE sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination, sources run the full spectrum from routine UFO fansites to out and out barking mad conspiracy theorist. No reason why UFO sighings here are particularly notable.TheLongTone (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One could argue that this article should discuss the misidentification of drones as alien spaceships, but I don't really see how that's especially notable. We already discuss such things in UFO. Rehashing it here doesn't really do anything. Besides that, we're left with unreliable fringe sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NinjaRobotPirate, TheLongTone. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have UFO sightings in the United Kingdom, UFO sightings in Brazil, UFO sightings in Canada, UFO sightings in France, UFO sightings in Australia, UFO sightings in China, UFO sightings in Belarus, UFO sightings in Argentina, UFO sightings in India, UFO sightings in Italy, UFO sightings in Sweden, UFO sightings in Indonesia, UFO sightings in the Philippines, UFO sightings in Belgium, UFO sightings in Portugal, UFO sightings in Spain, UFO sightings in Iran, UFO sightings in Norway, UFO sightings in Russia, UFO sightings in Mexico, UFO sightings in the Canary Islands, UFO sightings in South Africa, UFO sightings in New Zealand and UFO sightings in the United States. Is there some particular reason that UFO sightings in Iraq are non-notable? I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it seems that the general rule is to keep articles such as this. Rather than proposing a single one for deletion, it would be more appropriate to propose merging them all into a List of UFO sightings by country. GoldenRing (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, I could spend years cleaning the unreliable fringe sources from those articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one of the reasons why I tend to avoid certain areas of Wikipedia: I know it will cause me nothing but grief to look at the articles. But it makes for a nice rainy day project, I suppose. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that singling out one of these articles is not going to be a productive way of going about this. Either they should all be nominated for deletion or we should attempt a mega-merge into List of UFO sightings by country. Somehow I struggle to see consensus emerging for either of them. GoldenRing (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really have precedent on Wikipedia. Each article is judged individually. In my opinion, it's a valid discussion topic to raise the issue that certain articles have been deleted or kept, but that's all it is: a talking point. This is generally referred to as "what about X?" and "other stuff exists". Just because one sub-topic is notable doesn't mean that every related sub-topic is notable, and vice versa. It's not a bad idea to suggest an article that these less notable articles could be merged into, though. The problem is that we would need something to merge. Fringe sources don't become any less fringe when they're merged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a complete list there are still more countries that don't have articles than ones that do. In any case, it's simply WP:OTHERSTUFF.TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But responding with, "If that's a complete list there are still more countries that don't have articles than ones that do," is at least equally an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I suggest that some people here go and read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rather than merely taking its name in vain. There you will find:

It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.

It's hard to think of a case more on point than this; it appears that there is an existing consensus that the category of articles 'UFO signtings in X' are notable where there is enough material to make an article. My point was, and still is, that deleting these piecemeal is not the most productive way of going about this. The contention that, "each article is judged individually," is plainly wrong; if you skim through WP:AfD you will find numerous nominations for multiple articles combined. It would be appropriate, in my view, to merge these into one article or, if the consensus is that there is no material to be saved in them, to delete them in bulk. GoldenRing (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly wrong? We'll see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you contend that there are no AfDs for multiple articles? GoldenRing (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Steffensen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was nominated for AfD in 2012 but the discussion was closed after only one contribution (which was from a single purpose account writing articles about Henning Larsen Architects). Article makes no particular claim to notability, Steffensen seems only to be a senior member of staff at the architectural practice. Publishing a book and lecturing at a university seem insufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent subject (his architectural firm) and merge whatever content is worth including there. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Henning Larsen Architects as suggested by User:Candleabracadabra. I am not finding evidence of individual notability for this person. (Note there is an investment manager of the same name about whom more coverage can be found.) AllyD (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE has been supplied. The only thing I can see that looks like it could lead to notability is publication of a monograph of his drawings, but to be notable for that we need multiple reliably published reviews of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis and lobbying efforts[edit]

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

I've invested some time into this article since I've converted this from a requested speedy to a prod, which was subsequently rejected. It is more of an essay that attempts to push a particular point of view, than an encyclopedic entry. At first I've attempted to go over it in some depth, to investigate what could be done to improve it. I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing here of value that can be used as a base for something fruitful. There isn't anything that can be merged either: it's a mess of weasel wording and synthesis. While I agree with the point this page is trying to make, it's not Wikipedia's place to be making points. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also looked into this, and it's reliant on a lot of questionable sources and is mostly a synthesis essay. Anything of value can be merged elsewhere, but if there's much, I don't see it either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States seems to be best fit as it seems to be based on the lobbying efforts for and against in the USA Amortias (T)(C) 19:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge. I do not see any baby in this POV bathwater. If someone wants to create a neutral article out of this mess and then propose that as a merge, I am happy to revisit my !vote. I think a restart would be a better use of resources though. VQuakr (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above. We don't fix POV problems by deleting everything, but by adding in opposing viewpoints. GoldenRing (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Northamerica1000 - Seems a better solution than deleting. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Garrett P.I.. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Bronze Ambition[edit]

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

Article about a book that does not seem to be sufficiently notable. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 12:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Garrett P.I.. Individual book not notable. What about all the others in the series?TheLongTone (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI agree a merge sounds like the best-what are the other books of this franchise also? If there is a franchise page-that be great. Wgolf (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Garrett, P.I. Maybe a case could be made for the first book in the series, Sweet Silver Blues, but not the 14th. (Plus this one was really, really awful. I want a refund.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prakash (film director). $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhartha (2014 film)[edit]

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

An upcoming movie does not meet Wikipedia notability guideline for films. Unable to find a single reliable source having substantial coverage of the subject. WP:TOOSOON? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prakash (film director). Right now principal photography hasn't really started. Until more filming has begun, it's just a little premature to have the article, especially since apparently Prakash has been trying to get this movie made since 2009. Odds are good that he'll make it since they had the launch party the other day, but filming is a tenuous thing and a lot of stuff can prevent a movie from actually getting made- even at this stage. We could probably redirect it to the director's article with history. I've cleaned it up, so there will be a clean copy to pull from if/when more RS become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Actors Theatre[edit]

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

Non-notable theater company. Lacks non-trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep borderline notable. The article provides two different third-party sources, which is good enough for my personal taste. _noisy jinx ^huh? 15:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a simple click on references above shows a good selection of non-trivial coverage. I would support re-writing it to make it less "POV-y" but that's editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lake Camp[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you look? Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has more or the same notability as the other camps in ((Summer camps in New York)) El Johnson (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It you're right; we can delete those in due course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator appears to be going through a list or category of summer camps and nominating them all for deletion, indiscriminately. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surprise Lake Camp for example, where a summer camp that really obviously meets wp:GNG is also nominated for deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Kawanhee for Boys, where I also vote Keep. I assume wp:BEFORE standard is not met here, either, for this Forest Lake Camp article. I voted Keep also for similar reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Ondessonk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Creek Camp, too. --doncram 20:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC) --doncram 21:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust that whoever closes this AfD will take into account your partisan canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My same response to Pigsongthewing's identical statement in similar AFDs: Absolute nonsense. Please do try to explain where there was any "canvassing" at all. In several AFDs on summer camps that Pigsonthewings has nominated, i have pointed to other ongoing AFDs about summer camps, pointing out some relatedness between the AFDs. This seems appropriate, there is no canvassing to user pages or to any Wikiprojects. Nonsense. --do ncr am 00:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historic camp that has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be significant with regards to the general notability guideline. Unless there is sufficient coverage in secondary sources, it doesn't appear to be notable. Tutelary (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is as notable as Summer Camps go, it is over 80 years old, and is mentioned in secondary sources. El Johnson (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bride of the World[edit]

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

I can't find anything reliable other than the Times of India article (which really doesn't say much of anything about the topic). I could be missing something as I don't know the topic area well, but I'm finding zip. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree that this is less known pageant. But this is in growing stage, so Its my opinion that an International pageant should be part of Wikipedia. Yes I also agree that sources are less, we have to wait for further updates. I understand Hobit concern but I will suggest to wait further.GKCH (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No we require sources to be included, if the sources aren't there yet, we don't wait before we delete it (it's been 6 months already), we wait before we create it. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage, so can't be sourced and doesn't suggest notability. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, BOW is an International pageant. Agsliil (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being international helps, but by itself does not establish notability, according to guidelines on event (WP:EVENTS) and organization (WP:ORG) notability. Independent reliable sources are still required. I suggest evaluating the sources as well. Agyle (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. One article with reasonably significant coverage is from Daily News ("Sri Lanka's national newspaper since 1918"). An article with moderate coverage of the 2010 pageant is from Pinoy Power (Philippines). I found maybe 20 other articles that mention the pagaent without significant coverage of the topic, often focusing on a country's particular contestant, or just running a couple nice pictures with a couple sentences. They don't establish notability due to the depth of coverage, although they do establish the international media interest in the topic. Some examples include: Viva Lanka (Sri Lanka) with a 4-sentence paragraph about the pagaent, Metropolis (Japan) with 3 sentences about the pagaent, Andalucia Informacion (Spain), Curierul Zilei (Romania), Mediaş Info (Romania), Jurnal de Argeş (unknown Eastern Europe), The Standard (Hong Kong), The Telegraph (UK), Elegant Magazine (Sri Lanka), Torun 24 Telewizja Internetow (Polish) (includes video of model photo shoot), Beautpageantnews.com (pageant-specific bloggish site), Venus Veil (Japan), and Tokyo Frontline (Japan). Agyle (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Creek Camp[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This camp was the subject of a feature in Time magazine in 2007. [24][25]. The camp has also been noted for its environmental efforts including a program to preserve and reintroduce rare pitcher plants. [26][27][28][29] On a more unpleasant note: [30][31] (and many other news reports about this case). --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Time article is behind a paywall, but appears (according to your second link) to be "an article about boys growing up in today's society", not about the camp. The pitcher plant and child molestation stories fail WP:NOTINHEROTED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator appears to be going through a list or category of summer camps and nominating them all for deletion, indiscriminately. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surprise Lake Camp for example, where a summer camp that really obviously meets wp:GNG is also nominated for deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Kawanhee for Boys, where I also voted Keep. I assume wp:BEFORE standard is not met here, either, for this Falling Creek Camp. I voted Keep also for similar reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Ondessonk, too. --doncram 20:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC) --doncram 21:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust that whoever closes this AfD will take into account your partisan canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly as i posted in response to Pigsonthewing's identical accusation at another of these AFDs: Absolute nonsense. Please do try to explain where there was any "canvassing" at all. In several AFDs on summer camps that Pigsonthewings has nominated, i have pointed to other ongoing AFDs about summer camps, pointing out some relatedness between the AFDs. This seems appropriate, there is no canvassing to user pages or to any Wikiprojects. Nonsense. --do ncr am 00:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Tulaev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonnotable Russian white supremacist. Zero significant coverage in independent sources. Let numerous references not fool you. NOthing imrpved since previous nominations. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The first nomination was falsely closed as no-consensus by a non-admin. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about "falsely"; both previous closes don't look very controversial. But they were both closed as no-consensus by non-admins after repeated re-lists with very few comments. I suggest we not do that again this time: let's please keep it open until enough comments have registered to make consensus or its lack more clear (regardless of whether it takes more than two re-lists) and to avoid the appearance of impropriety let's make sure the close is by an actual admin this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have fixed the title of this nomination and have repaired links from the article and AFD log. "(2 nomination)" now redirects here. Stalwart111 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. There's no independent reliable sources that make out the subject's notability. The keep votes in previous nominations never addressed that point but only made assertions. I hope the closing admin notes that. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had nominated this before, there are simply not enough sources to show notability or sustain an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not meet WP:RS and WP:BLP. Specifically, of the sources in this version, sources 1, 4, 6, and 15 appear to be biased sources (split between white supremacist and anti-racist sources), 2 and 7 do not appear reliable, 3 is the subject's own site, 5, 9, and 10 appear to be reliably published but mention the subject only trivially, 8 is one of his publishers' web site and has only a trivial mention, and 11-14 and 16 are deadlinks and appear to be another of his publishers' web sites. That leaves nothing that we can use as the basis for an article or to show notability. And the past history of AfDs for this article leaves me unwilling to give it the benefit of the doubt that better sources can be turned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Segall[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Coverage in local papers for his two unsuccessful runs for Congress, but nothing before or after or unrelated to those two campaigns.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC) — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's neutral, reasonably well-written and doesn't cover personal irrelevancies. It doesn't read like an autobiography or a puff-piece. It's exactly the sort of article we would be comfortable with were there more sources and were the subject to pass WP:NPOL. But he doesn't and we generally don't have articles for losing electoral candidates. In this instance, he didn't even make it to the primary during his second run so there isn't even the "major party candidate" notability that some argue should apply. A couple of lines in press here and there isn't enough to substantiate a pass against WP:GNG in my view. Stalwart111 23:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. GoldenRing (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1999 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships (Lower Divisions)#2000 Qualification Tournament. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships Pool B Qualification[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2000 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships Pool B Qualification

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

duplication of material within existing article 1999 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships (Lower Divisions) 18abruce (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect See no reason why you can't just redirect to that section. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top 40 Oifigiúil na hÉireann[edit]

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

Top 40 singles show (IRMA charts are used as far as I can make-out), with presenters speaking in Irish, broadcast on several radio stations, but I cant find any notability, unique as it seems, just stuff like this on redfm or this from the prodution company. The only notable one I fund is the independent article used on the page. Murry1975 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Murry1975 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Falta[edit]

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

From what it looks like-possibly a local show out there. Wgolf (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significant sourcing can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2010 (Ellie Goulding EP)[edit]

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

Generally non-notable release per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Lights (Ellie Goulding album), as an expanded version of it is featured on a re-release of the album. It alone is a non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources for this release; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 02:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Session (Skylar Grey EP)[edit]

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

Like most of these small iTunes only releases, there's no entry at Allmusic (see here) and most other notable places on the web. Cannot find anything of value on a google search either. Non-charting, non-notable release per WP:NALBUMS. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found in reliable sources for this release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 02:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yves Lacoste. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lacostian view[edit]

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

This has remained an orphaned, unsourced stub of one sentence not explaining anything for nearly nine years. Short Google and Google Books searches come up with zero results not related to this article. With many works of Yves Lacoste not been translated into English and taking his generally huge influence on that field of study into account, I'd say there probably is something that might be dubbed a 'Lacostian approach to geopolitics', but still, to merit an article there would be the need to show that it couldn't be covered within the existing articles on Lacoste and geopolitics. Article had been tagged for proposed deletion in 2007, but the proposal was removed by the article's creator. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yves Lacoste - since this subject is related to him, and this article is not developed. It would be hard to find anything on Lacostian view, if it exists. There's this, but it looks like other books taken from a wiki, though it doesn't say so. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 12:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested and WP:CHEAP. We have resorted to redirecting one stub to another when the main topic is notable, but not individual concepts. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SM Town Week[edit]

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

Nothing in the way of sourcing to indicate this is notable one way or another and deserves an article. Please see WP:NCONCERT. The references in the article all come from the company that owns the outfit--besides, of course, that one Facebook "reference". Drmies (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches are not providing adequate coverage to qualify topic notability. I found this passing mention, but not much else. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 7/7 non-reliable sources. OccultZone (Talk) 07:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read furiously[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:CORP. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third-party coverage: just social networks, their own websites, and listings (e.g. Google Books). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage either. I've warned the original editor about COI, since his username seems to be the same as one of the company's founders' twitter handles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bazaar Canton[edit]

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

I'm not seeing notability for this subject, a one-location store that was in business for only 17 years. The article claims notability as the first Asian food store in the area, but I could not find any evidence that this was a significant first. The only references given are local obituaries for the founder. In a search, the only things I found about the store itself were Wikipedia mirrors. MelanieN (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 02:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 02:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 02:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde Boats, which article I'm glad still exists. This article is equally charming and I am unabashedly invoking WP:ILIKEIT, fully expecting to be overruled, and no doubt rightly so, by my more serious-minded colleagues who will see immediately that it satisfies no known notability guideline.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a refreshing "vote"! --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ive tried twice to find refs for this, and what we have is all there is. I strongly suggest that the article creator (who is the shop owners son, a distinguished local judge) save a copy, or request a copy if its deleted, and contact the local historical society to give to them. his personal recollections should be entered into the history books. it IS fascinating and an important part of the history of the city and of the Chinese community there, but i dont see it rising to notability based on what we can find.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmph, looks like the distinguished local judge also wrote an article about himself. It's reasonably neutral/encyclopedic so I guess it's OK. User:Mercurywoodrose, do you also know of any way of contacting the judge? He didn't list his email at his userpage, and he hasn't edited here (at least not logged in) since 2008. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it looks as if his recollections are already on the record.[32] --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for finding that. I dont know if it increases this articles notability, but it definitely helps if we want to add info on the Canton to his article, thus allowing for a Merge and Redirect as an option i support. I can also see it being kept now. i dont have a way to contact the judge, though i appear in ala cty court regularly (not as a defendent, im not that much trouble:))Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would add the name Stanley Gee to the opening, but as a combined article about him and his business I think it passes muster per the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable idea. I found a few sources that talk about him and mention the store.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you all basing your "keep" votes on"? The two obituaries (only one of which is from a significant source) plus the judge's recollection speech (a primary source)? Do those really pass WP:GNG? --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, rhe obituaries which clearly state that the Gees and their business was influential and pioneering. Candleabracadabra (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Paul Cummins[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article appears to be largely self-promotional. Sources for the article are largely self-published or arise from social networking sites. Search results seem to direct to this page or copies of it, or to more social networking sites. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable. The article itself was created in September 2013; an earlier version of this article was proposed for deletion, and subsequently deleted, in July 2013. RomanSpa (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recreated after first afd, nn article. Szzuk (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sources meeting WP:GNG after looking through the usual G-searches, Gscholar, and Highbeam. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Guiliano[edit]

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

~~Non-notable college president. None of the "references" amount to the significant coverage required to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO.~~ ukexpat (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) WITHDRAWN--ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/gallery/20131013/FEATURES/101009999/7 this source is good, but it's not included in the article.--77788er (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePage has previously been deleted and was created by a currently banned user. ALthough he is a college president, the article doesn't provide any evidence for him being notable enough to be included on wikipedia ThatBrownLady 14:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatBrownLady (talk • contribs)

Keep Although the article has been a battleground for unknown reasons, this person meets WP:ACADEMIC and the article should be improved through the normal editing process. Deletion means victory for trolls. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person, as noted, meets WP:ACADEMIC as head of a large university. This AFD appears to have been created by sockpuppets. The claim that the article itself was created by a banned user appears to be nonsense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)

I most definitely am not a sockpuppet and I resent the characterisation. Did you even bother to check my contribution history? At least I sign my messages.--ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fact the article has been created by a banned user is now confirmed - see below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep black letter notability: "Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university...", per WP:ACADEMIC. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Artcle was created by a sockpuppet of long-term abuser Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the impulse to enforce a ban, but, on the other hand, this article now has two sections, six cites, and several content creators. The article is now a valid contribution to Wikipedia. And it will grow once the drive-by taggers move on. What do you want to happen, delete this article, and have an identical article replace it immediately after? I'm ok with that, but it seems a somewhat mechanical way to handle the troublemaking of a banned user, and not a pretty thing to see. I have no interest in the subject area, just a desire to see a desirable article for Wikipedia not be disrupted into deletion. - Neonorange (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A banned user might have created the article, but the subject of the article is notable and there should be an article on him. --NellieBly (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Cardwell Ross[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced orphan article. Tagged with ((unreferenced)) since March 2010; ((orphan)) since July 2010. No sources or related articles found today. FunkyCanute (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - sources and notability uncovered. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search will confirm that he existed and held the post listed. This post and his decorations are easily high enough to qualify for inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the links point to sources that are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. You are clearly weak in Google-fu! Try just searching for Leo Ross. In any case, Google is not the be all and end all of sourcing. It appears he did hold the listed position. That makes him pretty notable. If he held even one of the two Rhodesian decorations listed that would also make him notable. The combination of all three means definite notability. Did he hold them? Well, this webpage says he did; although it's not a "reliable" source and can't really be cited, it does suggest it's likely he did. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, further research reveals a real person of certain notability. How does one go about revoking an AFD nomination? FunkyCanute (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Aoki phenomenon[edit]

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

This article is very likely original research and lacks reliable sources to support it (at least for now). For now it contains mere speculation of a phenomenon and probably does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia until sufficient coverage on the matter is available. (PS. Somebody take a look at the Japanese version of the article.)Thomas J. S. Greenfield (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the Japanese article? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See also this discussion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The phenomenon has received coverage in the major Japanese media as indicated by the sources, so notability appears to be established, and I don't see any evidence of "original research" on the part of editors to the article. --DAJF (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no faith that these sources provide reliable, in-depth discussion of the supposed phenomenon. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DAJF (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Inability to read the source language is a personal issue and has no bearing on the veracity of the sources.

The phenomenon is not really about the pseudo-science behind it, but how Japanese media took this nonsense and ran with it. The article has coverage in major news outlets (Asahi, Yomiuri) and needs to be rewritten to reflect its status as an urban legend rather than some legitimate medical condition. Jun Kayama 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you can explain, then, what the mysterious reference "Hon no Zasshi (in Japanese) (Hon no zasshi sha) (40), 1985: 55" means. What is "Hon no Zasshi"? It should be the name of the article, since that is how bibliographical notes are usually done--but what, then, is the name of the publication? And how to explain the page number, compared to the page numbers "1-15" for the next entry? Ha, I derive from this that "Hon no Zasshi" is a "magazine for books"--so what then is the title of the article being referenced? And why does it say "Hon no Zasshi" and "Hon no Zasshi sha" in the same reference? And why should one possible magazine article and two short articles in Japanese newspapers make for in-depth discussion? What if the newspaper articles are all tongue-in-cheek, from the man-bites-dog column? Have you read the articles? So no, this is not a "personal issue" at all, it's a Wikipedia issue, and the burden of proof is on those who say "this is reliable and in-depth". Drmies (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've already opened all the web-accessible sources on ja:青木まりこ現象 and looked for the AERA article by 吉岡秀子. Apparently you couldn't even figure out 本の雑誌 until Moscow Connection broke it down for you.

The web-accessible references are either dead links or have nothing to do with 青木まりこ現象. However, Japanese media (AERA, TBS Radio) have covered this so-called phenomenon. There are a heap of personal essays and some game show references which do not support notability, but there are enough references such as [33][34] which spotlight it as an urban legend on par with, say, crop circles. Article in current state is inexcusable, but a rewrite taking into account its urban legend status in Japan should not be ruled out of the question, even if the article is tasteless. Jun Kayama 21:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"本の雑誌" (Hon no Zasshi) is a Japanese monthly magazine. It looks like this: [35]. The name means that it's a magazine about books. "本の雑誌社" (Hon no Zasshi-sha) is a publishing house. The name means "Hon no Zasshi Company". --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a step in the right direction. For a magazine, the publishing company is unnecessary. But that leaves the question of what the title of the article is, and what the correct page numbers are.

As for reliability, the magazine's articles are cited in various places (found it through Google Books), but this seems to be a personal essay, and thus we can hardly infer that the author is writing about something "real" and noteworthy. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The search for the name of the phenomenon in Japanese gives more than just Hon no Zasshi magazines: [36]. And this article looks reliable: [37]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is いま書店界を震撼させる『青木まりこ現象』の謎と真実を追う！！. The page number are 2-15. --GU9udoy6Kg (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the reference to page 55 in the article? Drmies (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 55 indicates page 55 of the 40th issue of the magazine, and the 2-15 indicates pages 2-15 of the 41th issue of the magazine. --GU9udoy6Kg (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For easy reference, the Japanese article is at ja:青木まりこ現象 and is surprisingly long, with what at first glance appears to be an impressive list of citations and references. However, I suspect that they are a mixture of non-reliable sources, and reliable sources covering a running joke rather than actually demonstrating notability for the condition. I'm no expert on Japanese culture, but the citation from Tokyo Shimbun [38] appears light-hearted. As for notability of the urban legend – well, perhaps; but the current article is about the alleged condition rather than the history of the urban legend, so it will be no loss to delete the existing page. – Fayenatic London 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Tokyo Shimbun [39] article is dead serious, but Japanese media has an odd habit of picking up nonsense (cellphone exorcisms, Aokigahara is haunted etc) and running with them on major news outlets as commentary. It's not hard to infer the publisher for 本の雑誌 just ran with it after 1985 in order to boost readership. Most of this sort of nonsense gets dropped fairly quickly, but mention of 青木まりこ現象 has clocked almost 30 years now, so even if it is patently false (like fan death in Korea) the notability lies in how Japanese media has dealt with it rather than the actual so-called condition itself. Jun Kayama 21:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some Japanese experts (psychologists, physicians, psychiatrists etc.) have been making consideration about the phenomenon. Moreover, several books was published with specializing the phenomenon. Please check the Further Readings. --GU9udoy6Kg (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed the "reference" to The Lost Art of Reading for reasons explained on the talk page, which give me little hope that the others are valuable. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this web page, Toshio Kasahara, who is a clinical psychologis, studies the phenomenon. --GU9udoy6Kg (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Kasahara is a parapsychologist who believes in out-of-body experiences and paranormal phenomenon. Suggesting that he is a clinical psychologist is misleading and a borderline insult to the intelligence of others. That being said, there is quite a bit of media traffic on this ridiculous so-called condition, which says more about the Japanese propensity to embrace some random fringe theory and run with it. If the article cannot be rewritten to reflect its status as an urban legend and how it refuses to die in Japanese media, I'm all for deleting it with prejudice. Jun Kayama 03:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - How is ~~shitting~~ defecating in a book store notable or even a phenomenon? .... Anyway delete as non notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mrs. Drmies would beg to differ. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hahaha :) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is why I don't take you to Chapters any more Drmies. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Jun Kayama has demonstrated that the topic is notable by providing links to numerous sources ([40], [41], [42]) and looking at the Aera article.
Google Search gives plenty of results. Here's one more, it calls it a urban legend: [43]. Anyone can just rewrite the first sentence to say it is a urban legend.
And here's a blog post that shows how some of the sources that are referenced in the article, but not available online, look: [44]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I loathe how Japanese academia plays fast and loose with footnotes and source material, never mind the Japanese blogosphere, and I strongly suspect that this so-called condition was hyped up by a niche print publication and gained traction solely by the preponderance of bookstores in Japan and some scatological Eureka moment which I find it impossible to share. As a bona fide medical condition with a credible scientific explanation, there is nothing behind it. As a sociocultural phenomenon which refuses to die an immediate and lasting death in Japanese media for the last 30 years, it deserves an article if fan death does in Wikipedia. The subject matter is preposterous, the article is a hack job, but still there are enough credible sources for WP:N and unlike the dozens of other ludicrous so-called conditions profiled in Japanese print and television, this one has a life of its own. Jun Kayama 03:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if this ridiculous article still exists by the end of this weekend, I will rewrite it entirely with an eye to keeping it in line with WP:OR and away from スカトロ趣味 (Scatophilia).Jun Kayama 12:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Kayama, I am very sorry to have given you so much trouble. I don't know what to say except thank you. Jun Kayama様、お心遣い大変痛み入ります。格別のご高配を賜り厚く御礼申し上げます。--GU9udoy6Kg (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

いや、別に礼や謝罪などいりません。I have no need of either gratitude or an apology. Jun Kayama 04:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Kayama, I appreciate your comments here, but I find them hard to align with your earlier "keep" vote. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have problems separating personal distaste for an article with whether it meets WP:RS and in this case, it meets the criteria for WP:RS through notable Japanese media sources, which is why I don't do things like AfD-bomb AKB48 articles for the hell of it. The article at issue is not written to reflect this, and I just edited the header this morning to reflect its urban legend status. As I stated above, if after this weekend no one fixes it, I'll do it, and if anyone still wants to torch the article afterwards, they can have at it. Jun Kayama 18:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 either Korean_nationalism or Irredentism I'm leaving it up to whoever does the merge to figure out which of those is the more appropriate target, but in either case, leave a redirect behind. Nobody mentioned it in the AfD, but I do notice that Korean reunification exists, so I'll toss that out as yet another possible merge target. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Korea[edit]

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

Doing some researching, I haven't found "Greater Korea" in use as an irredentist term (most of what turns up relates to the unification of North and South Korea).

Also, there's no sourcing in this article. Holdek (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is also not a neutral article (Baedo should be explained/glossed as Tsushima). These other claims could be added to the Irredentism#Korea. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. The term exists.[45][46][47] It is a Pan-Korean nationalist idea. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first of your references says: "...strong obstacle to greater Korea-Southeast Asia relations." So the word "greater" is followed by the word "Korea", but this is not evidence that this term exists. Please check the other references yourself, and see if they do even refer to "Greater Korea". In any case, there is no content to the article, except to list Korea's various claims over bits of territory outside its current borders, which can be done somewhere else. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the whole sentence. It explains Korean nationalism. Anyway, the third source even mentions the "concept of Greater Korea". Fakirbakir (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just refer to the terms existence in Korean_nationalism#Manchuria_and_Gando_Disputes or Irredentism#Korea, rather than have a whole article on it?Jonpatterns (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with Korean nationalism would be also fine with me. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irredentism#Korea. The concept seems to exist: [48]. However, apparently there are not enough data to write a separate article about the expansionist ambitions over "Gando and neighboring parts of Russia where about three million ethnic Koreans live". Avpop (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or redirect. The concept is probably notable, based my overview of Google Books, through I couldn't find a single dedicated work/definition. Unless this is expanded, in the current stub version it's a bit ORish and I'd encourage merging to nationalism in Korea. PS. The correct target article doesn't even exist; editors interested in this topic should probably focus on the clearly notable topic like this rather than a more fringe term like Greater Korea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nationalism in Korea would cover the same information as Korean nationalism, maybe redirect there?

Yes, dear anon, that's a good target. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there isn't enough information for its own article, it could usefully be merged into Korean_nationalism#Manchuria_and_Gando_Disputes or Irredentism#Korea.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maayathe[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC; sources are WP:SPS and therefore unreliable Drm310 (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does Not meet WP:NMUSIC As @Drm310: stated Dudel250 (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Harsh (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilio Asuncion[edit]

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

Seems to have done one film and that is it. and a short film, also seems to be more of some promotion for some movie I believe. Wgolf (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wickedleak Wammy Passion X[edit]

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

A non notable smart phone, also seems like an advertisement page. No links go here either. Wgolf (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The smartphone mentioned in the article is non notable. Furthermore, the article has been written like an advertisement.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRODUCT. There seems to be a reasonable amount of independent coverage out there.[49][50][51] What's needed is some more balanced reviews which reflect the concerns expressed by some users. But that's a content issue. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite popular smartphone in India. I can find many reliable and significant sources after a quick search. [52] & [53] among a few. I agree with Trevj. I also don't find it like an advert. Harsh (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon a source review, passes WP:GNG. Examples include: [54], [55], [56], [57]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article does not contain reliable sources demonstrating the notability. Despite all the efforts, the sources have not been found. It is unlikely they exist at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miles-Butler Hughton[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with very minor roles so far and sourced only to IMDB too early for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theroadislong have you deleted my other source because IMDB was not my only source. Also who put my article for deleation. SillyPotatoe (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other "reference" was his Twitter account...Twitter is NOT a reliable reference and neither is IMDB because anyone can edit there. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a threat?SillyPotatoe (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is an AfD. See WP:AFD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Miles Butler-Hughton to see new refrences.SillyPotatoe (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen my resourcesSillyPotatoe (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:SillyPotatoe. Sorry, but people will comment when they comment, so it is best not to prod them to do so. I have a few views about this topic, but I don't have time for it right now. Somtimes you just have to wait! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you decided what you are doing with my article?SillyPotatoe (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. It's way too early for this actor to have an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clarityfiend may I refer to Kia Pegg articleSillyPotatoe (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Found several film reviews and news articles including information about Kia Pegg, but not much about Mr. Hughton. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm adding one more source.SillyPotatoe (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closung DiscussionSillyPotatoe (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SillyPotatoe, you have to wait for an administrator to close this deletion discussion; you can't close it on your own. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Therefore, not yet notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My article has his profile on Robert Kelly Associates at the bottom of resources. And the dumping Ground is notable.SillyPotatoe (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ENT. And no, a listing by his agents is not an independent source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has him in the list and his notability. Also the Shannon Flynn article has agents list.SillyPotatoe (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia defines notability. And Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shannon_Flynn. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behance[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Was written like SEO spam till yesterday. Two stories are just about it's sale to Adobe. Only one short article about it. The other references are pay-to-enter "awards". OKNoah (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is really unfortunate. Behance produced some innovative organizational products in its early years and seemed like a very interesting company and culture. But it has changed almost completely since Adobe purchased it and perhaps that explains the sorry state of the article today. It appears the "Action Method" products are now produced and sold elsewhere under a license of some sort. It would be wonderful if someone with knowledge of the company's early days could edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.164.179 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge is great, but first-hand info isn't. We need proof it's notable. --OKNoah (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily. I'd entertain a redirect just in terms of building it out summary style, but there's no way this is non-notable enough for deletion. Here are a series of news postings from The Next Web about the site/company that are fine on its own. Here's another dedicated article from Business Insider. And then there's a bunch of coverage on the acquisition, e.g., [58]. czar ♔ 02:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the most notable thing referenced seems to be the sale to Adobe. --OKNoah (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but see that first external link for a series of articles that should easily confer notability of the subject czar ♔ 04:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advert language is being added back to the article, but proof of notability is not. --OKNoah (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add the several links I cited above, if you're interested in the article. There's no deadline czar ♔ 05:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet minimum WP:GNG. The article does need a ton of work, but that is not a reason to delete. --Bejnar (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a lot of coverage, but enough to meet our notability standards. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison (executive)[edit]

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

This is a bio of a business executive that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The references present in the article are a brief item about him leaving Nintendo (business as usual type news coverage) and is not significant coverage. The other two items are about other things for which he is interviewed / quoted. My searches for sources found only more coverage where he is being quoted. Whpq (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would count the Wired interview as significant coverage. Long discussions about his livelihood qualify, just as asking an author about their books, a musician about their songs, etc, would count as significant coverage. On that note, I also found another extensive interview with GameSpot: Q&A: Nintendo Vice President George Harrison. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Has coverage in multiple sources, but they're mostly due to his role as a marketer in that the articles are not about him but the company ([59][60][61]). And then there's a whole lot on his departure [62] but notabilty for all that coverage alone is close to WP:BLP1E. He also has a Joystiq tag [63]. Anyway, I think this is a weak case and I can easily cede to a redirection argument (to NOA). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 03:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The sourcing pointed out here, aside from the ones about Harrison's departure from Nintendo are not about Harrison. Note that his role as stated in both the Wired and Gamespot items is "senior vice president of marketing and corporate communications" (emphasis added). These significant sources are about Nintendo, and Harrison is working in his role as SVP of Corporate Communications; in other words, a senior spokesperson. As for "discussions about his livelihood" qualifying, which source is about his livelihood? The news about his departure is just regular news reporting on the comings and goings in the industry. I don't see anything that talks about what he has done of significance at Nintendo as the SVP of Marketing and Corporate communications. -- Whpq (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Worley (singer)[edit]

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

Non notable as far as I can tell -- simply being a member of a notable band does not, without more, make one notable by wp purposes and does not therefore make a stand-alone article appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Harsh (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and was unable to find any sources to help establish WP:N notability. Delete unless there are some sources forthcoming. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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