< 18 September	20 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pizda (chemical)[edit]

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

This is not a notable chemical compound. All chemical compounds are required to meet WP:GNG to be included in Wikipedia. There only a few primary sources in lower-tier journals mentioning this compound (and the sources are really about a variety of chemical complexes derived from this chemical, rather than about this chemical itself). The only reason this article was created was because it has a funny name in some non-English languages and while this may be titillating to some people, it is not sufficient justification for an encyclopedia article. WP:PROD was removed with the vague statement, "A merge may be a better option", but no target for a merge was suggested, nor do I think there is a suitable one. 71.185.49.96 (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the AfD for the IP. ansh666 23:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By consensus at the Chemistry WikiProject, not every chemical is inherently notable. This chemical does not meet the general notability guideline. ChemNerd (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking reliable sources indicating how this chemical is notable.-- danntm ^T _C 18:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of journal articles just ain't enough for notability. Lagrange 613 04:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto "Wild Che" Leche[edit]

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

Copy-paste of the article William L. Carlisle. Every online reference discusses Carlisle, not Leche. All instances of the name 'Carlisle' appear to have replaced with 'Leche' and passed off as a new article. Vycl1994 (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G3. Location (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vandalism. The IP editor that created the page also vandalized the William L. Carlisle article twice with the same changes. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neither the nom nor the "keep" !votes are heavily policy based. The references in the article are minimal. Personally, I would think that a merge to home canning would be a good solution and I recommend to open a merge discussion on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weck jar[edit]

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

This article does not seem to offer anything new over what is in Home canning and does not seem to warrant its own article. Stesmo (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable by this title and so deletion would be disruptive. Andrew (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG, –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have articles like Mason jar which are notable enough to stand on their own. I can't see why this wouldn't be able to stand on it's own either Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After three relists, it doesn't seem that consensus is getting any closer... Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Cavalera[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that she mets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. She has articles in two other languages, but neither of them could help establish her notability. It has been tagged for notability for over 6 years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has been the editor of Bollettario ([1]) and she has been written about as an author ([2]) but mostly in Italian. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, the English article appears to be a near-exact translation of the Italian article, which means that there is no more information about her in her "native" WP. The references are weak. Of the ones above, the Google books reference is her name on a single page of a book. The second reference is from a local newspaper and is about her. I don't know the reputation or reach of SenzaColonne News, but my feeling is that it alone doesn't establish notability. I tried doing searches in some of the national newspapers (La Repubblica, Corriere della Sera) and got zero on her name. If there is an interest in her I would suggest beefing up the Italian article since there are more likely to be searches for her directed there. 50.1.85.108 (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An not notable person.User:Lucifero4

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 23 August 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I agree this unsourced article is in bad shape. I found about five references suggesting that she's notable, added them, but they were in Italian, and I'm hesitant to rely on the Google translate facility, but regardless, I think she's notable, as the sources appear to be from news, TV, magazine articles, that is, WP:RS, with Cavalera prominently mentioned. I didn't cut any of the unsourced material just because it's been around a while in Wikipedia, and my sense is it is probably true (one of the statements I could reference).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:14, 31 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 08:40, 7 September 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, ‑Scottywong | express _ 22:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as can't find any evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources in this Italian poetry magazine.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An active but not notable poet. For notability we need something more than just evidence that she's published and participated in her city's art scene. We need documentation from secondary sources, like reviews of her work, that her work has been influential, or at least noticed. The sources provided just aren't enough, and I haven't found any others. Assessing notability with a foreign-language subject is difficult, but I think this is the right choice. Lagrange 613 04:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do read Italian and can say that from the information that I can see (and I did add some links) she is notable not only as a poet but as an activist in what in Italy is called the literary avantguard. The journal that she founded (which is in print, but also appears recently online) is held in libraries in the US, Germany, UK, Spain, and of course Italy. It IS indeed hard to find good sources here in the US (the interest in culture and poetry here is much below that of some other countries), and in my experience the articles in the Italian WP are not at all rigorously sourced. I will work some more on this article over the next day or so. LaMona (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links and filled in some information on the importance of the journal she founded and also the literary prize. I may be able to add one or two more bits of information about her, but I think that the article will remain the length it is unless we move deeply into the area of literary criticism (which is not my forte). Take another look, please. LaMona (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you haven't changed my mind. Your edits seem mostly to have sourced existing statements and improved the wording. You improved the article, but you haven't done anything to convince me the topic is notable. Lagrange 613 20:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dübendorf Air Base[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article, based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Unreliable. The Banner talk 22:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it Dübendorf is called the birthplace of swiss aviatic, and military aviatic. it was one of the firstmilitary airfields of switzerland. the first airshows wehre held here, until ww2 it was also the civil airport and the swissair was foundet here. one of the first civil aviation buildings of europa was buld there and exists still (today building of the Berufsfliegerkorps) in WW2 it was an important fighterbase and many US Bomber like B-17 where forced to land in dübendorf and held until the end of WW2, als a Nazi Nightfighter with lichtenstein Radar endet up in dübendorf and the first jet ever a Nazi Me262 landet here. After WW2 it was an important base for the Jetfighters, air shows wit air to ground firing and droping of napalm was shown to the public. it was the home of the Recon Mirage IIIRS. The first homebase of the Patrouille suisse (now its Emmen AFB). The P-16 took of from Dübendorf for its first supersonic flight.Until 2007 it was the home of F/A-18 Sqad 11 Tigers. All jet , Transport ac and helicoptertypes operatet at "Dübi". also the Solarimpulse1 HB-SIA took of from here for its first flight, and was brought back to Dübendorf from the USA in a B747F who landet here. Since WW2 it was the home of the UeG überwachungsgeschader and now of the BFK Berufsfliegerkorps. the first Radar surveilance was established at Dübi after WW2. Today is Dübendorf the homebase of Helicopter transport units , homebase of the Superpuma Display Team , PC-7Team, the Military SAR helicopter and the civil REGA SAR and the Policehelicopter of canton zurich. The Military Air defens and directions center is lokatet here the AOC Air Operations Center of the Swiss Air Force is locatet here and also the civil Skyguide Air Traffic center. Dübendorf AFB is in history and in its actual rol important enough to be here on wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC) @Banner you had before delete some parts of theText , with the argument that no refernce ist given. I had you shown that all this points are in the refrence and i had translatet it for you. so put this now after this for deletion seems not right to me." It is what will be happen to this AFB vom 2016 to araound 2022. Since short after WW2 dübendorf was 100% military airfild. had fighterjet do 2007. Helicopters and Prop aircraft today .it is a Miltary Air base, in the future is mil&civil aviatic and the inovationspark. the refrences [3] clearly say this.I have translatet some important parts with google, you can check it if you don't belive me.". Unter anderem die Geschäftsfliegerei und die Kleinaviatik sollen dort eine Basis erhalten" =Among other things, the business aviation and sportaircrat pilots are there get a base."Es soll künftig deshalb dreiteilig genutzt werden: Erstens als Flugfeld für den Bund, zweitens für die zivile Fliegerei und drittens für einen Innovationspark."=It should therefore continue to be used in three parts: First, as an airfield for the federal government, secondly for civil aviation and thirdly for Innovation Park."Konkret soll es im Norden des Flugplatzes einen Standort für Helikopter geben. Diesen Platz wird sich das VBS mit der Schweizerischen Rettungsflugwacht (Rega) und der Zürcher Kantonspolizei teilen, alle drei haben eigene Helikopter."=Specifically, it is intended to provide a location for helicopters in the north of the airfield. This location, the VBS will share with the Swiss Air Rescue (Rega) and the Zurich cantonal police, all three have their own helicopter."Daneben bleibt genügend Platz bleibt für den Innovationspark. Rund 70 Hektaren sind dafür reserviert, wie Bundesrätin Doris Leuthard (cvp.) an der Medienkonferenz ausführte"= In addition, there is sufficient space remains for the Innovation Park. About 70 hectares are reserved for how Federal Councillor Doris Leuthard (cvp.) Executed at the press conference.[reply]

It is clerly said that the REGA and the Police Helicopters have to move to the NORD, next to the Military helicopter (REGA is at the moment on the opposide side of the AFB to the mil helicopters, Police Helicopter is at the moment on the top of the AFB at that place weher the Inovations Park will be built) in the ref its clerly said that the have to move to the nord:Konkret soll es im Norden des Flugplatzes einen Standort für Helikopter geben. Diesen Platz wird sich das VBS mit der Schweizerischen Rettungsflugwacht (Rega) und der Zürcher Kantonspolizei teilen, alle drei haben eigene Helikopter = Specifically, it is intended to provide a location for helicopters in the north of the airfield. This location, the VBS will share with the Swiss Air Rescue (Rega) and the Zurich cantonal police, all three have their own helicopter." FFA P-16 (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On german wikipedia is much more informations about Dübendorf AFB. as my english is not well enough to translate everything may some one who is able to do it can improve it here in the english wikipedia. FFA P-16 (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or speedy keep~~ since the nominator has not identified a valid rationale for deletion. Being unsourced or having OR (I saw no evidence of egregious problems with sourcing; there are references, they just aren't inline) is a reason for maintenance tagging, not deletion. --Jakob (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reasons the nominator gives for deletion are issues for cleanup, not deletion; AfD is not for cleanup. The nominator seems to have a pattern of making poor nominations for deletion; a refresher of the deletion criterion and alternatives to deletion may not be amiss. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The author of this article is making the article unreliable by making things up that are not in the source given. If you think that it is okay to have an unreliable article, than be happy with that Bushranger. But I prefer no article above an unreliable one. The Banner talk 03:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've come across an article that's badly written and unreliable? WP:SOFIXIT.--Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The method I like to use to fix it, is called WP:TNT. The Banner talk 07:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which is a form of SOFIXIT. Reduce it to a stub so editors, particularly new ones, have a foundation to build upon it. Stubs are always better than no articles. --Oakshade (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@What should i have made up?. Everything you put into question is in that refrerence. I showed you and translatet it also to english. It clearly say that the REGA and Police Helicopters have to move :"Konkret soll es im Norden des Flugplatzes einen Standort für Helikopter geben.Diesen Platz wird sich das VBS mit der Schweizerischen Rettungsflugwacht (Rega) und der Zürcher Kantonspolizei teilen, alle drei haben eigene alle drei haben eigene Helikopter."So if they put all helicopters together in the nord, the REGA and Police have to move to the nord because they are at the moment on other locations on LSMD, REGA Base [4] is near the Museum oposide the Skyguide Building [5] anear Überlandstrasse and the Mil Helicopter are locatet next to the skyguide Building [6] near the motorway A53 the Police Helicopter is today locatet on the other side of the skyguide Building as the Military helicopters, on top of Dübendorf AFB [7] In the Buildings next to Wangenstrasse. FFA P-16 (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC) @The Banner. So you nominated it because I should made things up..I have shown you a online surce as referenc, also you should know that books also can be a ref and we have here a book who covers most of this wikipage it also has a chapter about the future plan for LSMD ( Menschen Maschinen Missionen Geschichten vom Militärflugplatz Dübendorf 1914-2014, published by Schweizer Luftwaffe 12014 ISBN 978-3-033-04653-5). Sorry but in my eyes you are to trigger happy with nominating this (and ALR Prianha) for deletion. You say you understand german so if you just spend the time to nominate this for deletion using this time for using google with key words like zukunft Flugplatz Dübendorf, REGA Dübendorf,Polizei Helikopter Dübendorf you have all refrences who clearly show that i am not have made a thing up. FFA P-16 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is quite clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously a significant and notable air base, with available sources.-- danntm ^T _C 18:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable, needs cleanup, not deletion. Tag it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable place. The article is in worse shape than most but so bad as to be in WP:TNT territory or really even close to it. Lagrange 613 04:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn People seem to think that sources are more important than a reliable content. If so, be happy with low quality articles and dissatisfied readers. The author of this article has more articles written about the Swiss airforce that are grossly overstating the facts or are creative with the sources. But when others don't care about that, why should I care about it. I withdraw the nomination and wish mr. Sockpuppeteer best of luck with undermining the encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 10:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not the place for content disputes. Lagrange 613 13:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have given refrenc to any point you put in question, i showed it you online, and also you can read it in the book Menschen Maschinen Missionen Geschichten vom Militärflugplatz Dübendorf 1914-2014, published by Schweizer Luftwaffe 12014 ISBN 978-3-033-04653-5 Chapter Zukunft(Future) starting on page165. I don't overstating anything..I have delivered the references.FFA P-16 (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Aerospeed (Talk) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wilke[edit]

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

This is a hard one to categorize because the subject's wears many hats - author, management consultant, psychologist. He did appear on Bill Maher in 2001. (So have thousands of other people). The article claims the subject had a 100,000 listener radio show, but the reference (#3) makes no mention of it. The Steve Wilke author page on Amazon appears to be mixing several Steve Wilkes together but the likely books Wilke actually authored don't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR notabililty standards. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think his likeliest chance of meeting WP:BIO is WP:CREATIVE (same as authors - seems mostly notable for creative works), but I'm having no luck finding anything to support that. This [8] is a report of one of his seminars, but a closer look at the website shows any member of the armed forces can contribute content, so it's pretty much a blog entry by the guy who wrote it. There seem to be a number of places that sell his 2 books, but no reviews anywhere that I could find. If his radio show can be better sourced he might qualify under WP:ENT. Dcs002 (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wilke falls into a peculiar area where many men like him lie. Essentially he is scholarly in his two well known books for the novelty in their ideas and research. I think he best qualifies for WP:Creative #2 "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Like most scholarly authors, their books are often only read by a select few, though this does not disqualify them for notability. He just happens to be one of those topics where there is not that much literature and thus not that many references, but Wikipedia rightfully contains many articles on the scholars who specialize in more obscure topics. Wilke falls into that category and thus should qualify under #2 of WP:Creative. Also, I checked the Amazon page and can confirm that all of them were written by Wilke. Albeit he strangely seems to always include his wife in the authoring of his books. The books that aren't listed here on the Wikipedia page seem to be more popular literature in character than these two business management philosophy books listed here, which fall under scholarly. Brookspowell629 (talk)

Comment (Please sign your posts. :) I think it's a bit of a stretch for him to qualify under #2. He isn't known for originating Family Systems (that was his advisor, James Framo). He adapted it for use in corporate settings. His adaptation is arguably original, but is he known for that, as documented in RS? I also disagree that his books represent scholarly works. They are not written for academic audiences. They are written for general audiences and clients of his Corporate Family Systems work. I think they fall under the headings of self-help and popular psychology rather than scholarly work. For notability as a scholar (academic), WP:NACADEMICS applies, and criterion #7 might be relevant. Unfortunately, that page says "Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7." His work has been a commercial application of the scholarly work developed by Framo. But back to WP:CREATIVE, I had a brain hiccup and didn't look for other books by Wilke, so I didn't see Answers to Anxiety (I do series) or Dealing with Depression. If they have received adequate coverage, then he might qualify under WP:CREATIVE standard #3. I'll do another search soon for reviews of these books. If his collected works have been the subject of multiple, independent reviews in RS, he will "likely" qualify under WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE. Dcs002 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some things I found: Answers to Anxiety is recommended by Christian Counseling & Educational Services [9]. It's one in a list of four recommended books, but only a mention - no in-depth coverage. All four books are published by Sonkist Ministries (originally, I think) and LEADon, both of which are founded by Wilke (Rebecca Wilke co-founded Sonkist Ministries), and are therefore self-published. I found no reviews of any of the four books which Steve Wilke authored or co-authored. The joint bio for the couple on Amazon says they "serve as radio media consultants on Marriage, Family, Mental Health, and Educational issues." I wonder if that's the radio show reference - that they are interviewed from time to time on some radio show. Yes, he has a Ph.D., but that doesn't make any of his works scholarly, and none of them appear to be - certainly not the four we've identified so far. And I see nothing to indicate any of his books are well known either. This all strengthens my !vote to delete. Anyone can self-publish and run self-help seminars. I see nothing more here. In cases where notability is marginal, my bias is to keep, but this doesn't strike me as even marginal. Dcs002 (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiachra10003, this page [10] at Amazon shows our author and his four books. As an author, he goes by Dr. Steve Wilke. Dcs002 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the titles I thought were his. All of them are published by LEADon (as mentioned above, that means self-published) and have Amazon Seller Rankings in the 4 million to 5 million range - i.e. almost no sales at all. I'm leaning more strongly to Delete than I was when I nominated the article. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but I want to offer a caveat: Those Amazon seller rankings are live numbers, apparently within a rolling time period. They don't adequately reflect sales in previous years. A book might have had a serious impact, but its sales have since waned. For example, a friend of mine wrote a special-interest book, published in 2010, and ranked in the 200,000's last December (VERY impressive, and a total surprise, given his narrow target audience), but it's around 1.6 million now. Still, that book was the subject of at least nine independent reviews, four of them in academic journals. (He wasn't even targeting academics when he wrote it. He has no college degree, but they consider it a valuable work.) It remains a very important book in his field - the seminal work, in fact, on the subject he covered. (And it was self-published, as specialty books often are.) I know, it's just one bit of information in your decision-making, and I don't disagree with you, but I wanted to point that out. Dcs002 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Upon doing a google search, and from knowing Gary Thomas (author)'s works very well (I wrote the Wikipedia page on him), I know that Wilke has been extensively quoted by Gary Thomas (who sold over 1 million copies on his Sacred Marriage alone). Here is the link to the google search of all the blog posts that Wilke is quoted in or guest posted in (link). I know for a fact that he made it into the reprint of Sacred Marriage, as well as a few of Gary's other books, and coauthored The Sacred Search. Yet even though he has all that influence in that sphere, his business books have even more influence, that influence is just harder to account for because the books are used internally by management in corporations. We run into this "problem" at Princeton University in business/entrepreneurship courses I'm in because often some of the most "creative" scholars (as Wikipedia would define them) aren't largely quoted because they are used internally by powerful corporations, who like to share externally almost nothing. It is just sort of word of mouth which books are considered of big influence and thought changing. Wilke's book does that for emphasizing and mapping out how intentional work culture and relationships can increase profits and is the other necessary side of the coin to standard business operations. Thomas's citations of Wilke show how influential he is in a domain that he doesn't even specialize in, this is something that could be reasonably attributed to his work on corporate culture. Brookspowell629 (talk).

Comment These are neither multiple nor independent sources. Blogs are never considered reliable sources under WP:BLP unless written by the subject, and about himself, and then it does not count toward notability. These blogs would not be independent sources anyway because the subject himself is a contributor. In order to be a useful source, Gary Thomas' books would have to give Wilke significant coverage, and Thomas must, in addition, be independent of Wilke. The fact that Wilke is a regular contributor to Gary Thomas' blog, and the fact that he "coauthored The Sacred Search" (with Thomas, I presume?) is pretty clear evidence that Thomas is not independent of Wilke. (However, co-authorship can contribute to notability under WP:AUTHOR, standard 3.) Wilke cannot inherit notability by virtue of co-authoring with a notable author. In any case, we would need more than one source to establish notability. When establishing notability, what's required by WP:BIO are "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added). Numerous citations by one source count as one source for notability because they are not "intellectually independent of each other." I challenge the independence of Thomas as a source, and beyond that I challenge that his works would constitute multiple RS to establish notability. Dcs002 (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to address influence on corporate culture. If multiple, independent RS's gives significant coverage to Wilke and his books or seminars or his ideas and philosophy as influencing corporate culture, then I think that should satisfy notability. Business newspapers (or business sections of regular newspapers), business magazines, and trade journals would be a good place to look for such sourcing. Individual corporations and their officers or managers need not speak themselves to this issue or share anything externally. If Wilke has had a significant impact on the corporate world, it will have received coverage in the corporate press. (It'll be no easy challenge to find, given there is a baseball player, a guy arrested for helping a convicted killer escape, a tennis player, the dean of students at Southwestern, and the city manager of Lake Mills, WI, all named Steve Wilke.)

For an example of how a person can become notable for his influence on corporate culture, see Stephen Covey. One needn't be quite that notable to qualify, but certainly "powerful corporations, who like to share externally almost nothing," did not adversely affect Covey's press coverage. Dcs002 (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brookspowell629, you have done a great deal to improve this article, but there is still inadequate sourcing. All content about Steve Wilke is either self-published or from Amazon, except the Bill Maher appearance. (The AFTA article is about Framo, not Wilke.) The cit given for the couple's radio show did not support the claims made or the listener numbers, and in any case it is from the couple's own website, not an independent RS for potentially contentious information. (They have a COI to provide higher numbers and greater importance.) I have a hunch there is more out there, but I have looked pretty diligently and not found any, yet I am not familiar with sources for Christian ministries or reviews of Christian books. I don't like deleting articles that look marginal, but this hasn't yet met notability requirements, not even marginally. I do hope you can find RS, either in the corporate literature or the Christian literature - wherever. Deletion is an unpleasant undertaking. Dcs002 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Brookspowell629, you are only allowed one !vote. You have !voted twice. I'm sure that was not your intention, but please ~~strike~~ one of your !votes. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only third-party resource is the Bill Maher show, which I cannot view, but the remainder of the resources are books and articles by the Wilke's. The only books that I could find listed by Leadon Press were those of the Wilke's, which does indicate that it is a vanity press [11]. Does not meet WP:N. And may I say that I find it highly offensive (and this is an aside, not a vote) that all of the books listed were co-authored by a husband&wife team, but that the only WP article and the only Amazon author page is in his name. Really? In 2014? LaMona (talk) 00:12, 27 August 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, Natg 19 (talk) 09:15, 7 September 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, ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 21:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Opuntia#As food. Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bajtra[edit]

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

Non-notable liqueur. No independent refs with in depth coverage and nothing obvious in google. The two non-English wiki articles contain refs worth stealing. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added this entry for Bajtra seven years ago after a trip to Malta where my wife and I enjoyed this liqueur. Bajtra may not be very well known in every part of the world but it's incredibly popular in Malta. When we got back home to California we searched for Bajtra and had a difficult time finding any information. After a lot of research we did find it and I added the entry to Wikipedia in case anyone else was looking for Bajtra as well. I always thought Wikipedia was a repository for all knowledge and information so I can't understand why anyone would want to delete any factual information that someone spent the time and effort to research and add to the database. But if Wikipedia only wants to cover the most popular things in the world then I guess you should delete my seven year old entry for Bajtra but I would certainly disagree with that decision. JohnnieYoung (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links to a couple articles about Bajtra that tell a bit more about this liqueur and its history in Malta. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20030320/local/i-zeppis-bajtra-i-the-liqueur-from-the-prickly-pear-fruit.154122 and http://tfrnorthcyprus.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/chefs-choice-prickly-pear-liqueur/ Maybe someone who is more of a Wikipedia expert could help me incorporate some of this information into the main Bajtra entry. Thank you. JohnnieYoung (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable: [12], [13], [14] ... --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A single passing mention, a recycled press release and a non-independent interview. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to you. To me, the links (notable Maltese newspapers) show that the liqueur is popular in Malta. But I respect your opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Opuntia – As food. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article, but this would add verifiable content (per this article) to the Opuntia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kopernik (organization). Per previous AfDs. Delete & redirect. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toshihiro Nakamura[edit]

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

Spin-off from discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewa Wojkowska and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopernik (organization) which I nominated last week. Apparently the probably notable NGO has two non-notable founders: here's the second of them. Just like Ewa, it seems to fail WP:BIO notaiblity reqs: not enough in-depth coverage and/or mainstream coverage. Being a regional TED speaker is not enough. Ping User:Novickas, User:Michitaro, User:Skyring, User:AlanS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references all seem to be incidental, with none of the biographical details properly sourced, so notability is tenuous. Also appears to be promotional. --DAJF (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 9 September 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, Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 21:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is a co-founder and CEO of the organization,[15] so why not to redirect and possibly merge to Kopernik (organization)? There are also sources such as this one (published by The Japan Times, so I don't think Mr. Nakamura is entirely not notable. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox (Atari demogroup)[edit]

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

A subject which doesn't appear to be notable according to our standards. Λeternus ^(talk) 22:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their 64kb "Kings of the Playground" won multiple scene.org awards and has a permanent place as on of the most downloaded releases in demsoscene-history: http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=12790. Also, it would be a shame to see this list grow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles 83.117.116.175 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 September 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:58, 9 September 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, Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 21:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It will be difficult to assess notability using internet searches of a group that started in 1988 and is no longer with us. ~KvnG 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Dutch[edit]

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

First, Dutch has not played in a regular season game in a professional league and does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, he has not received national press coverage or won an award that would qualify under WP:NCOLLATH. Third, he has not been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources so as to pass WP:GNG. He was not even a regular player at the collegiate level; according to the Michigan statistical database, he saw action in only four games (three in 2005, one in 2007). Cbl62 (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Based on Cbl62's reasoning.--Yankees10 03:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college football players and other athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major records or awards), and fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. There is a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage, and there is some in-depth coverage out there, but it's not available on independent sources; what's there is recruiting sites, team team sites, draft sites, blogs, and fan-written content sites, all of which we discount heavily. What is not there is significant coverage in mainstream news and sports sites and publications. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Wagner[edit]

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

Non-notable author. —Swpb^talk 18:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - tagging for speedy deletion. —Swpb^talk 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this since nom CSD'd article.... but the CSD's been declined so reopened...... (Not sure if nom wants to withraw or what.), –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to withdraw - the subject hasn't gotten any more notable. —Swpb^talk 14:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. After removing the copyright violation I spent some time looking for sources when I first found this article in the RC feed. There are quite a lot of hits, but nothing of real substance (it's all blogs, etc.) so I think she falls below the notability standard. But it's close. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also did a pretty good search for sources and didn't find any. An article in WP may be premature for this author, who appears to have begun publishing only recently. The books are going into library collections, as per WorldCat.org, but so far I see no serious write-ups of her as an author. LaMona (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Manett[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. —Swpb^talk 18:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as can't seem to find any evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of the article does not meet any standard of notability. Orasis (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My newspaper and magazine searches did not yield much, although I found a local write-up and a mention here. Need more WP:RS to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ...and userfied to User:Billy Hathorn/Tom Abraham. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Abraham[edit]

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

Non-notable college football player who went on to become an upstanding member of his community in a small town in Texas. All well and good but WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies in this case. Article is sourced largely to an obituary in a local newspaper. No indication that he meets WP:GNG, and the obituary in the local newspaper isn't sufficient. It's not even clear whether the obituary is editorially independent as opposed to being a paid death notice. Cbl62 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Subject is from a prominent family in Hemphill County, TX, whose founding members came from Lebanon. He was a Texas Tech Red Raiders player c. 1930 and 1931 and helped organize the parents club there. His store in Canadian, TX, was regionally known. He was a philanthropist. He was written about in December 1992 in the Amarillo newspaper, but I don't have the exact citation, just a reference to that article in several other Internet stories about him. I think he should be included in Wikipedia; indeed he has been on the board for more than seven years. The article has been revamped with in-line citations, which were not previously there. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy -- I'm just not seeing the notability, despite your efforts. There is nothing to indicate he was a notable college football player, And the article is entirely sourced to an obituary from a local newspaper and three entries from find-a-grave which is not even a proper reliable source. Owning a store in a small town in Texas isn't enough IMO to make him notable. The fact that his brothers were notable (much of what you've added relates to them) also doesn't suffice to confer notability on him. This article really seems to amount a memorial for a good guy, but Wikipedia is not the place for memorials for every good guy in every small town. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable college football player and small-town good guy. This subject satisfies neither Wikipedia's specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no national awards or records), nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (no significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). Among other Wikipedia guidelines, WP:NOTMEMORIAL clearly applies. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Administrator - Please offer to userfy the article text for User:Billy Hathorn, so this may be transferred to an appropriate local website in Hemphill County, Canadian or Amarillo, Texas. This content belongs somewhere, just not here. Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete: All those cites to the local paper make me hesitant to say there's not a case for notability, but really this biography is super long for what it is. A life well-led is not a case for notability, its what we all wish for. We don't need to invent something huge, win an Oscar, or marry Elizabeth Taylor to have a worthy life. But like 99% of the world, we won't be on Wikipedia, either. I completely agree with Dirtlawyer1 about userification.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Billy has worked very hard at improving the article since it was nominated. It previously was supported by nothing more than a death notice from a local paper and find-a-grave. The current form of the article is quite different, and I probably wouldn't have nominated it had it been in its current state. At this point, I'd have to say that I'm neutral. Cbl62 (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second of a five-part series on four generations of Lebanese-Americans in the Texas Panhandle. Sourced with dozens of newspaper articles, one book, various Internet sites about Canadian and Hemphill County. The Abrahams are the most notable of Lebanese immigrants and descendants in the Panhandle; there are other such families in Texas as a whole. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sreepeetham[edit]

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

In my opinion the article is more or less an advertisement for a non-notable organization; the subject appears to have been the main focus of exactly one article from a reliable source, namely the The Hindu article in the references. Since I'm fairly new I'm not sure how reliable my judgment is at this time though; I'm wondering what other people think. --Richard Yin (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:PROMO BlueSalix (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Describing speech[edit]

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

Really seems more of a writer's guide kind of thing rather than an encyclopedic topic. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:OR BlueSalix (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib (Actor)[edit]

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

Much too soon (also notice the creator has the same name has him) But yes this guy has only one film released so far. Wgolf (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G11 - recreation of Md. Shoaib Khan, already G11'd today. Bazj (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Higo[edit]

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

Don't see that much notability-maybe someday as this guy is VERY young. but for now no. (Had a prod tag but this seemed better or a speedy even) Wgolf (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the author or someone adds reliable sources, as right now it violates WP:BLP. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Violates BLP as unsourced .–Davey2010 • (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like it was created by himself or a relative. (A longer version exists at SPA User_talk:Grampajerryco/sandbox) Totally violates BLP. LaMona (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and fails WP:BIO and lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to User:Vikas.jalaun/Diane Eskenazi. The user who contested the PROD, relises that it needs improvement and has asked to be made into a draft Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Eskenazi[edit]

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

Contested prod restored at request. I see no sign that this person is in any way notable, nor could I find any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Materialscientist (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shayantan Bhattacharya[edit]

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

Not sure if this guy is notable or not-says he did get a patent for his invention at least, but something about this article...seems off. Wgolf (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:AUTOBIO BlueSalix (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Betty ann d'agostino[edit]

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

According to the "Invalid Criteria" section of WP:BIO, simply being the mother of Tim McGraw (or having known his father) does not make Ms D'Agostino notable. ubiquity (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No personal notability. And there's enough about her on the Tim McGraw page. LaMona (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. I wrote this and don't think we should delete it. I think it is correct that she has been written about mostly because she is the mother of Tim McGraw and her relationship with his father Tug. But I think that there has been enough written about her that we should have an article. The Invalid Criteria section that is mentioned above says if you read it that it does not apply if there is significant coverage. I think she has significant coverage. You can see some of it here - https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Betty+ann+d%27agostino%22&num=50&gws_rd=ssl Spring1452 (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not worth a separate article. For our readership, this should be covered at the Tim McGraw page, which is the only context in which it makes sense. This is the way we treat innumerable similar cases. Separate articles are only logical when you're a parent of someone hugely famous, in which case a lot gets written about you as well, see, e.g., Mary Ball Washington. To be clear, no one is saying that Wikipedia should not contain content about this Betty ann d'agostino, just that it should not be a separate article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Denari[edit]

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

As far as I know TV announcers are not automatically notable. This subject has a job with the Pacers, I don't doubt that, but there is no significant discussion of him that I can find for him to pass the WP:GNG--this is the best I found, and it's not a secondary publication. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the not-secondary publication that User:Drmies linked, I was able to find this, which might meet the threshold for a source of notability. However, the problem is that it's just one reference and not enough to allow Denari to meet GNG. For that reason I say this article's gotta go. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TV announcers are not automatically notable of course. The line of notability gets reached for some high profile folks, and catches some regional TV news anchors in large markets (at least in practice at AfD), but usually not folks like Denari. And we've done some research to confirm that he doesn't currently meet WP:GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by MuchMusic. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egos and Icons[edit]

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

A tv show that as far as I can tell was unotable, can't find info on it and the link is dead on it. Wgolf (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / redirect to List of programs broadcast by MuchMusic 'Egos and Icons' comes up a lot on Google, but not much about the TV program, and no reliable sources to support WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought there would be a realistic prospect of sourcing this up via ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database, and was mentally composing a "keep and I'll fix it" rationale — but all I actually found was a smattering of TV listings blurbs that wouldn't be enough to confer notability under WP:NMEDIA (and yes, I tried both "and" and "&".) I'm Canadian and remember this quite well, but reliable sourcing, not "Bearcat remembers it", is what gets a TV show into an encyclopedia — and the available sourcing about it simply isn't substantive enough. This wasn't a regularly scheduled daily or weekly series, for the record, but merely an umbrella title for an occasional series of "documentary" specials on prominent musicians — so I suspect that explains why the actual sourcing falls down so badly. Redirect to List of programs broadcast by MuchMusic. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Gleicher[edit]

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

Non-notable reality star, fails WP:NACTOR. Appeared in one season of a reality show 11 years ago. Only news updates of her are gossip mentions, not significant coverage to justify standalone article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of the two refs is about her father. NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the other isn't independent of the subject. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NACTOR Orasis (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom BlueSalix (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WordSmith Records[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Article is sourced only to brief mentions in a regional newspaper. WP:PROD contested without edit summary. Kinu ^t/_c 15:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Trivial coverage ("quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources"), WP:CORPDEPTH. – Wdchk (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WordSmith Records was found in the news section of Vents Magazine on 23 September 2014. JimmyMac80(UTC)
Regardless of whether this source actually meets WP:RS, this article actually looks like a press release promoting a contest and does not help in establishing the notability of the company. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The resources are not reliable (e.g. Vents magazine seems to be a one-man operation, with him as author and editorial director). The others are insignificant "local business" articles. LaMona (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Late Late Show with James Corden[edit]

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

Should be, if anything, re-directed to The Late Late Show per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CRYSTALBALL, and then protected indefinitely. IP addresses refusing to follow what these two policies mean; there is no definitive date in 2015 to when Mr. James Corden is taking over the series, and he is not well known enough in the U.S. to qualify the article based on the series alone. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and lock per nom until we hear more about the show, start date and such, though I think a redirect to James Corden would be more appropriate for now to DAB readers to the right subject since they won't find out much through the current LLS article. Note I fixed the LLS link for the nominator. Nate • (chatter) 17:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: will the nominator be AFDing Late Show with Stephen Colbert? -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Should be on tv soon if more info could be added. But as stated above, how is this different from the upcoming one with Colbert?--Deletapedia (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & crystal. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Late Late Show (CBS TV series)#James Corden (beginning 2015), and merge to expand that section. Using the standard of WP:NFILM (because I don't know of a TV notability standard) a separate article wouldn't be warranted until this show actually starts production, unless it attains notability for some other reason. It would be very strange to have a separate article on this iteration of the show when we don't have a separate article on The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn, for example. Ivanvector (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the show is on CBS' schedule and is certainly notable. Citing WP:CRYSTALBALL is ridiculous as the show is not rumoured or a possible pick-up by the network, it's been announced by CBS as the The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson's replacement once that show ends in December and given the coverage given by outlets from the New York Times to BBC News to the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, CNN, TIME Magazine etc claiming lack of notability is equally absurd - see the results on Google News. Downwoody (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The series is clearly notable, and significant coverage exists to source the article. As Downwoody has noted, WP:CRYSTAL intends to restrain articles where the probability of future events occurring is iffy, not upcoming television shows with official series orders. Also, my question above goes unanswered. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several apparent misconceptions, but clearly no consensus to do other than keep at this time. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Global Group[edit]

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

The article was created in violation with Wikipedia laws and should be immediately deleted! Also users: 94.200.109.2 and GB fan should be banned from Wikipedia community because they are commercial creators from India and got paid to create this page. Please Wikipedia admins show no mercy to such practices! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PapaDoc88 (talk • contribs) 19 September 2014‎

Keep Company in question is generally notable and even a cursory news search comes up with plenty of reliable secondary sources and meets significant coverage requirements. The latter part of nom's argument is circumstantial and irrelevant. Orasis (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep-See[16][17][18][19][20][21]. Those are only the beginning. There are multiple sources from different publishers just about the casino such as [22][23][24][25][26]. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are multiple reliable secondary sources where Alliance Global Group is the subject of discussion. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 23:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

The sources you've listed appear to concern Alliance Global Group, Inc., a conglomerate based in the Philippines "with interests in the food and beverage industry, real estate development and quick service restaurants." The article under discussion is about a biotechnology company based in the United Arab Emirates. As far as I know, there is no connection between the two. --VeryCrocker (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What the user is referring to is that they either paid someone to create the article, or someone created the article and decided to bill the company, as seen in this OTRS queue. Either way, the company that is doing the billing isn't the most reputable freelance company, so I think they are just frustrated with that and are taking it out here by trying to get users banned. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jano van Hemert[edit]

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

Jano van Hemert does not meet the notability guidelines for academics, Wikipedia:Notability (academics). -- NVar (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete for reasons stated by nom, as per GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) BlueSalix (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete The article was created by the subject himself and it looks like all content was provided by him; all other contributions were structural or editorial. Although he has published a number of articles, many of which have been cited, he has not proven Wikipedia:Notability (academics). LaMona (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Left Behind characters. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie Durham[edit]

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

A fictional character with no reliable third person sources to justify a solo article therefore should be worst deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A check of the reliable sourcing reveals no notability for the character which is independent of the book series. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking any reliable sourcing for verification or notability. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this, and the whole lot of other articles for the individual characters, to List of Left Behind characters as its tower of proposed merge banners suggests. Very little actual merging is required. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sky television idents[edit]

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

Though the channel might be notable, there is no indication for why we need a unique article for a history of this channel's logos. Article is mostly unsourced, and has at least twice been the playground of sockpuppet operator HoshiNoKaabii2000/Unorginal (specifically Spendcute and SweetToof). Content likely doesn't meet WP:V How does one verify when these changes occurred and why they occurred, as in this sentence: "On 1 September 1993, the new Sky corporate look was introduced to coincide with the launch of Sky Multichannels." I would otherwise recommend merging to Sky's main article, except none of this content is sourced. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to the main article of the channel due to notability concerns. Logo changes should be easily verifiable at least with primary sources, because that is one front-facing image of the channel. However I don't see how independent reliable sources would devote to the logos themselves any more than passing mentions. Keepers, feel free to produce such sources to prove otherwise. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how we would use primary sources to verify when a logo first appeared. Interestitials? News broadcasts? At least news broadcasts might mention a date, but it seems like it would be WP:OR for us to observe "Ah, on 31 December, the logo was X and on 1 January, the logo changed." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am under the impression that logo changes, being one key identifier of a company, are important enough that companies would do press releases on them. But I could be wrong and is happy to be shown otherwise. And yes I agree that your example would be OR (without third party reliable sources support). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 02:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many other sites like TVArk that have this information already. The way we have it isn't very descriptive, unsourced 'type what I see/knew' recaps, and is full of little-interest cruft. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there were logos next to the section I perhaps would've !voted keep .... but there's not as such, Anyway barely sourced and unlikely to be improved... –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were before dickheads deleted them. 90.196.75.203 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were probably deleted for being an unnecessary gallery with no clear academic purpose. Whatever content accompanied them was probably unsourced just as this article is. Instead of calling the deleters "dickheads", you might have a word with the sloppy editors who think unsourced cruft is appropriate for a global encyclopedia. Even if merged, the content is still unsourced and will likely be deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge lacks necessary reliable sources, and Sky logos can be covered in the articles about their respective channels.-- danntm ^T _C 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It can be expanded with YouTube and TVARK sources. Merge - If it cannot, so we can at least look back at it in the history. 90.196.75.203 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this IP was recently blocked for disruption, and is likely a sock of HoshiNoKaabii2000/Unorginal or one of the socks who behave similarly. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely pointless article. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sky 1. Forgave (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis? Consensus is not a vote. (Clerk, please note the above account was created today.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am sure we could spend a while looking for sources in the internet. Forgave (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

(Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoshiNoKaabii2000.) Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Periklis Panagopoulos[edit]

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

Has been tagged for 5 and a half years now. The ref is to a dead link which this seems to just be something that was a minor news story from the look of it. Now i will admit that this does sound interesting-but nothing else is written bout it! Wgolf (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn Wgolf (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found one source but gotto go... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 11:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing notable in English; appears to be significant in Greek maritine industry given the stated size of his financial transactions, probably notable w/ Greek sources.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Shipping magnate(Google translation) Founded Royal Cruise Line.
SBaker43 (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - That there are dead links are not a reason for deletion. On the other hand it seems to have been a minor story. Anyway, what I can find online points to notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added 9 sources, mostly from HighBeam. The important points these sources reveal was first that the kidnapping received international attention and second, it extended over considerable time. It was in the news at least from 2009 to 2012, when at the end of the trial, the Greek prosecutor's home was bombed. I believe that there is enough in-depth detail to turn this stub into a nice article. I am One of Many (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Thanks for finding sources, I think the problem was the article seemed to have well too many issues. Wgolf (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Thanks to I am One of Many for finding refs, this afd saved this article from disappearing IMO, really though thanks and its nice to finally see something has happened. Wgolf (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources, in general, just don't show up on Google. I wish all the regular editors here could have access to HighBeam, it would be a lot easier to determine notability for people and events that were in the news 3 or more years ago. I think your nomination was very reasonable since you didn't have access to sources behind paid sites. I am One of Many (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as now meets GNG & AUTHOR thanks to Tomwsulcer. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Downey[edit]

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

The article survived a speedy upon creation, but still is suspicious. The sources are scarce and basically confirm newspapers sometimes quote him. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that article creator Happydaysyes (talk · contribs) afterwards spammed numerous other articles gives this a fishy smell (single-purpose account?). bender235 (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not think that if an article is created by an WP:SPA but has been edited by many people and does not resemble the original article,[27] that this is a grounds for deletion. It does look like it was a WP:SPA but we do not know that for sure, and I do not think that even that is a grounds for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON. If you try to Google Morgan Downey, it is hard to look through the results, because of another person with the same name who has gone into a lot of publicity for himself. It seems that his article, Richard Morgan Downey which is linked from this article and which has no sources and which content was created entirely by two seeming SPAs MorDowney (talk · contribs) and MorgDowney (talk · contribs) would be a better candidate to nominate instead of this one, so I am not sure I see why this one, which does have some sources, was nominated and that one was not. KickThe (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the article was in bad shape, with references not conforming to Wikipedia standards, but these problems have hopefully been fixed as per WP:HEYMANN. Clearly he's a top notch financial player, head of an information service for investors, an acknowledged authority on the oil industry since he was quoted here and here and here and here and here. There is in-depth focus on him when appointed CEO here and another one here. He moderated an industry panel here. Plus his Oil 101 book was well-received, a bestseller, positively reviewed here, he got a rave review here, another positive review here. Clearly he meets the WP:GNG for multiple, independent, nontrivial reviews, possibly passes WP:AUTHOR as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NOTE and WP:CS. Not too excited about the format though.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paheena[edit]

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

Okay originally I thought this was about a actual group until looking into it and even the name of the person that made this page makes this seem suspicious. Wgolf (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-BTW I considered putting this as a speedy as a hoax page but since I am not 100% sure. Wgolf (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax or not, I can't find any sourcing relating to this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Nwlaw63-Same here. I was originally doing the tags of notability and refs needed until I decided to look at it closer and then I caught the name of the user who made it. Since I was thinking I could do a speedy but you never know. Wgolf (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you are one of the editors who got a notification that you were mentioned on this page, even though you aren't, it seems that it was due to an editor accidentally transcluding a talk page here, which resulted in everyone mentioned on that talk page being notified. The talk page has now been de-transcluded. Please ignore the notification. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NOTE and WP:CS.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jelu Jayaraj[edit]

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

Seems like just 3 albums with nothing of importance or little is known about them is all this guy has done. Wgolf (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not meets the general notability guidelines and fails WP:PEOPLE. CutestPenguin ^discuss 05:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment-yeah some of these articles sometimes sound like "they are famous...in there own mind" type. Its amazing how many of these older articles have fallen through the cracks all these years later. Wgolf (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf:...still to dig a lot on Wikipedia

. CutestPenguin ^discuss 13:23, 2 September 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Needs to be more thorough.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ernest Maitland Prophet[edit]

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

Army officer of no notability. No reason, according to Wikipedia's own military notability guidelines, why he should be included in Wikipedia: too junior, as commissioned officers go, to meet requirement for notability, and no other cited reason for notability. Bristolbottom (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet was an Officer of the Order of the British Empire for his service to charity and a Deputy Lieutenant for Bedfordshire

Neither of which confers notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not meet notability requirements. WP:GNG is not met; neither is WP:SOLDIER. OBEs are not sufficient for notability, and niether is being a deputy lieutenant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 6 September 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, Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a little disappointing that such a significant contributor to a major charity should not be considered notable by wikipedia (itself a charitable endeavour). His service to charity was recognised by the Sovereign of the United Kingdom through an OBE, he was a Deputy Lieutenant of Bedfordshire (a notable award, despite the view expressed above) and he was a senior officer in the Territorial Army for which he was also decorated --‎ MJT21 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: to reiterate what was stated very clearly above, does not meet notability requirements. WP:GNG is not met; neither is WP:SOLDIER. OBEs are not sufficient for notability, and neither is being a deputy lieutenant. Yes, he was head of Beds SSAFA, but that's not sufficient either. Delete. - Bristolbottom _Talk 19:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strike delete. No second bites of the apple by the nominator. --Bejnar (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While an OBE by and of itself should not ensure notability, the reasons behind an OBE may. In this case he was awarded the OBE for his work with the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmens Family Association. As most of that work was prior to the creation of the Internet, its expression is to be found in paper records. --Bejnar (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Twisted Road to Kosovo[edit]

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

Non-notable book, I believe it fails WP:GNG. There is no substance or content to the article. Also the article lacks references too, most likely because there isn't any sources which suggests lack of coverage in the media. IJA (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the notability guideline, because it's about a single article from a non-notable journal. Our only source is a blog. bobrayner (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 31 August 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Gowan. I can't really find anything to truly show that this really merits a separate article from Gowan's page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Title will be found with a word search. Nothing indicates that this should have its own entry. Also note that this is an issue within a periodical, not a book per se. The periodical is Labour Focus on Eastern Europe ISSN 0141-7746; it is held in US libraries; some issues have multiple authors - this one had a single author. LaMona (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there any reason why the effort of "relisting" a discussion is worthwhile after three different editors have said that we need to get rid of an article, and none have expressed any reason to keep it? What does "relisting" achieve apart from a fourth editor finding time to agree with the previous three? If AfD were supposed to consider which articles to keep and which to delete, that has already been achieved. On the other hand, if AfD is just a way of consuming volunteers' time, then feel free to click the "relist" button again. bobrayner (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Unified Communications Manager[edit]

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

Appears to be an occupation of which is not notable outside of Cisco. Most sources are not independent and almost all the content is promotional. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic of this article is in fact a software system for processing VoIP phone calls. It has nothing to do with the human occupation of management. --Mark viking (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seven! interwiki articles! --95.158.58.33 (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1) As stated before, nominator has no clue about the topic. It is software and not occupation. 2) Article has many external links unrelated to Cisco. --Ilya (talk) 08:08, 4 September 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom, I believe, is confusing human management with this page about software. Orasis (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Cisco sources make up most of the refs, and are not independent. The rest are blogs and how-to sites which do not meet the standards of significant, independent RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. As noted above, this is not about a human job, it's about a piece of software. That being said, I don't think this topic meets WP:GNG. There's lots of references, but they're all internal cisco pages, or various blogs and tutorial sites that don't meet WP:RS. This is a well-known enough product that my gut feeling is that there could be reliable sources out there which talk about it in encyclopedic way, but the collection we have here aren't it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Houlton[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as an unsuccessful two-time candidate in a political party's leadership elections, so poorly covered in reliable sources that the article doesn't say anything substantive about his career outside of the candidacies — and, for that matter, so poorly covered that it's impossible to even determine whether it's actually a WP:BLP or not. Note also the redirect from Michael Houlton-Charette, present even though this article explicitly states that we don't know whether that was the same person or not — that will also need to be deleted. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am Michael John Houlton-Charette. I was born in Toronto 65 years ago. My Mother remarried after my father's death and I adopted my Step-father's surname in 1979. The article in question is accurate although incomplete. I first ran for office in the 1972 Federal election as an Independent candidate for Peel South at age 21 and twice in Ottawa as Leader of The Canadian Alternative Party, also in Mississauga South as an Independent in 1980. As President of Can-Ad, a loose-knit 30,000 strong "All-Canadian" business lobby, I have been featured in numerous earlier articles across Canada and in recent publications, known more readily as "Michael John Charette", and yes I was the candidate for Mayor of Toronto under my full name of Houlton-Charette. Although I have been in hiatus recently due to the illness of my parents, my career is well documented and rather than be deleted, I would like to expand this article in the near future with dates and published articles of corroboration. Thanks Wikipedia for your kind consideration! Michael J. Houlton-Charette — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Being a candidate in any election, in and of itself, doesn't entitle a person to a Wikipedia article. You would have to (a) either win election to a notable office, or (b) already have established enough notability for other things to get past a different inclusion rule. But merely running for office doesn't make you someone who warrants permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources under any of his names. Tiller54 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opportunity to add and clarify points made by our fellow users in this debate. As a Wiki-Greenhorn and subject of this article up for deletion I would like to refer to myself as "The Subject" to avoid sounding too personal. Firstly, the matter of reliable sources must consider archived material specific to Canada, Ottawa and particularly Toronto. The Toronto Daily Star (TheStar.com) which is the largest circulating newspaper in Canada, has 39 articles listed (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/results.htmlst=advanced&QryTxt=Michael+Houlton&publications=ALL&type=current&datetype=6&frommonth=01&fromday=01&fromyear=1971&tomonth=01&today=02&toyear=1981&sortby=CHRON) - for The Subject's birthname Houlton, starting on March 16th 1971 with the headline "How Young Ideas Often Crack Up Against The Dollar Barrier" and stating that The Subject's problem of raising investment dollars for a good idea in Canada was "as Canadian as the Mounties!" The "idea" is an All-Canadian AC Registered Trade Mark to give some recognition to Canadian-Owned business, as the red maple leaf was almost exclusively used by larger multinational corporations with massive ad budgets that virtually overwhelmed Canadian identity in business. Canada's flag was only five years old and epic political battles over language, French, English and Canadian identity were looming, culminating in two referenda in 1980 and 1995. The Subject was a familiar voice throughout these emotional public debates. Support from the over 30,000 strong business lobby Can-Ad and thousands more patriotic citizens, led to the creation of The Canadian Alternative Party (C.A.P.) and the only fully debated and covered constitutional proposal detailed and distributed since 1977. An article appeared in 1978 on the front page of The (Ottawa) Citizen (Ottawa Citizen Oct. 14th 1978) featuring a picture of The Subject with Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau on stage before a high school assembly as a C.A.P. candidate in the Ottawa Centre bi-election. The students had asked to debate The Subject's proposed constitution entitled "The Canadian Declaration of Independence". Many more intriguing nuances and details must be left to further postings.

Sticking to the most reliable source, The Star (The Toronto Star May 23 1982) ran a full page article in the Business section on The Subject, explaining the change of surname from Houlton to to Charette. It started with "Mike Charette is surely the most determined lobbyist in Canada." Subsequent articles are numerous and notable such as The Star's front page picture and text (The Toronto Star June 2nd 1987) reprinted also on the front page of virtually every major Canadian paper. (The Ottawa Citizen, Toronto Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette, Vancouver Sun etc. etc. on June 2 1987) The Subject pictured being restrained on the floor of the House of Commons in Ottawa is challenging the impromptu constitutional proposal put forward in haste and dictated by only 11 First Ministers, called The Meech Lake Accord, as being tantamount to treason. After placing former PM Trudeau's damning critique "On The Table", and with hands upon the Mace, symbol of parliamentary authority, The Subject orated these words..."I Protest This Treason!!!...I use these words both strongly and advisedly! The country of Canada is under attack from within!" Subsequently charged with causing a disturbance and facing a maximum of seven years imprisonment The Subject led a 2yr. coast-to-coast campaign, reported through every media in all Canadian cities. Helped by a growing number of academics, lawyers, politicians, pundits and citizenry, the court case was won, The Meech Lake Accord died, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney resigned and the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced from a super-majority, to holding only two seats in the House after the '93 election. The author of the article up for deletion who introduced the subject as a "political activist" must have been aware of some of these facts upon which for now, an adjournment is in order, given the length of this part of the discussion. To bring us more up to date, this letter by The Subject, was recently published in The Star on Sept. 12th 2014 (http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2014/09/12/pm_confused_about_cartier.html) detailing Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most recent constitutional error. Thank you for your kind consideration!MiJoH-C (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In all of this rambling, you still have yet to provide one single credible reason why you would qualify for an encyclopedia article. Running as a candidate in a by-election that you didn't win counts for nothing; our inclusion rules for politicians only cover people who won election and thereby actually held a notable office, and do not grant a presumption of notability to every single person who ever ran in an election. Founding a minor political party that never actually won a seat counts for nothing. Writing letters to the editor counts for nothing (I've had letters to the editor published, for heaven's sake). And I can assure you that you had far less substantive effect on the failure of the Meech Lake Accord or the results of the Canadian federal election, 1993 than you seem to think you did (they were both foregone conclusions quite independently of you). And on and so forth — none of this constitutes a reason why you would belong in an encyclopedia under any of our notability rules, and all of it constitutes a reason why you need to read our conflict of interest rules pronto monto. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dubious distinction of dispelling the myth that all Canadians are polite is duly noted and more worthy of the title Bearscat! Your misconstrued chronology and erroneous use of fact is not as easily dismissed. "Michael Houlton" is an article titled in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. It has been an article since Feb. 13th 2007! I, Michael John Houlton-Charette, have never ever requested such an article be created! A conflict of interest is not even possible under this circumstance, "pronto" or "monto". We are not even remotely in the process of discussing what constitutes the creation or acceptance of an article! The accredited article has been revised 11 times since it was created and accepted and 5 times in the first year. The 5th revision was conducted by an editor named "Bearcat"! The 3rd revision was to include a four letter expletive which is clearly contrary to Wikipedia policy. To be clear, the subject of this article has never ever uttered an expletive in public, print, or otherwise given cause for such a statement! It was endured for over three years before a wise editor had the decency to remove it as I had expected and hoped might happen even without my intervention someday. The Bearcat revision seemed to overlook this infraction and that too is duly noted.

Now, if I may continue, let us logically and without prejudice examine the motion put forward by editor and administrator Bearcat to delete the article entitled Michael Houlton.MiJoH-C (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia has different standards for notability and the use of reliable sourcing than it did in 2007; a lot of articles that were created back then don't meet our standards as they exist today, and cannot be kept anymore. In particular, we used to have a rule that anybody who led a political party automatically qualified for an article, even if the sourcing was weak — but that rule no longer applies, and a person does not qualify for an article on that basis anymore. We've had to get a lot stricter about what's keepable and what isn't than we were seven to ten years ago, because we've learned some very hard lessons about what can happen, both to us and to you as an article topic, if we don't insist on much more solid sourcing than we used to.

And we regularly catch a lot of articles that never actually met our inclusion standards, but have slipped through the cracks just because there's so much stuff to deal with — so the amount of time that an article has existed is never, in and of itself, a valid reason for keeping an article. If it doesn't meet our inclusion and sourcing standards as written, then the fact that it's seven years old rather than seven minutes doesn't matter one whit.

And incidentally, conflict of interest doesn't just apply to whether you created the article or not; even your responses in this discussion are straining the limits of that policy. Having a Wikipedia article is not an entitlement that you're allowed to demand for yourself, and not having one is not an attack on you as an individual — it's simply a reflection of the fact that the reliable source coverage isn't there to demonstrate that you pass any of our notability rules. Don't take it personally — heck, I don't pass any notability rules either. Bearcat (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Quotes Clarifying Two Previously Presumed Facts:

The Canadian federal election of 1993 was not a foregone conclusion!

"An election had to be called in the fall of 1993, since Parliament's term would expire some time in September. By the end of the summer, Campbell's personal popularity was far ahead of that of Chrétien. Support for the Progressive Conservative Party had also increased after Campbell won the leadership, and they were only a few points behind the Liberals, while Reform had been reduced to single digits."

The Meech Lake Accord was also not a forgone conclusion!

"Opposition leaders generally agreed to the accord. Liberal Party leader John Turner was put into a tough position, considering the popularity of the agreement in Quebec (a traditional Liberal stronghold until Trudeau's patriation of the constitution in 1982) and the Trudeau ideal of federal power within the Federation. He soon agreed to the accord, causing a rift in his party.[1] New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent also agreed with the accord.[3] Preston Manning of the Reform Party opposed it, saying it gave Quebec unequal status among provinces.[1] The Canadian monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, made a rare foray into political matters when she publicly expressed on 22 and 23 October 1987 her personal support for the Meech Lake Accord, for which she received criticism from its opponents.[4]"MiJoH-C (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Oh, really? Keep in mind that the overall course of the campaign, as it unfolds, has as much effect on whether something is a "foregone conclusion" or not as the initial starting position does. The 1993 election wasn't a foregone conclusion because the Tories were already toast before the writ was even dropped; it was a foregone conclusion because Kim Campbell's campaign skills during the campaign were abysmal, and the party's decisions during the election campaign were bad ones that alienated a lot of their initial supporters. Not a single media source on the planet credits you with singlehandedly shooting down the party's chances of winning that election, the way you claim above; they lay that at the feet of Campbell herself. And Meech became a foregone conclusion because of events that took place during the course of the ratification process. Not a single media source on the planet credits you as being the person who turned the tide on it, the way you claim above; they accord that status to Elijah Harper and Clyde Wells. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My plea for civility is merely a request to deal with the facts! Bearcat's "Oh Really?" - "Not a single media source on the planet credits you with singlehandedly shooting down the party's chances of winning that election, the way you claim above;" is puerile emotion that should remain in the sandbox.

There is no claim by me in any part of this discussion to "singlehandedly" accomplishing anything!

I saw only one "forgone conclusion", that Bearcat would answer with another grossly exaggerated emotional diatribe when confronted with Wikipedia articles as a notable source. His quote "And Meech became a foregone conclusion because of events that took place during the course of the ratification process." - a 3 yr. process, with an 11th Hour emergency First Ministers Meeting is not a "forgone conclusion". According to the poll referenced by Wikipedia - It was a cliff-hanger to the very end going right down to the wire or I should say feather, raised by Elijah Harper. Only "By June 1990, the same polls showed that a majority now rejected the accord.[5]"

You can't argue it both ways! It injures the logical mind and misuses the phrase, as linked by this Wikipedia reference as an appeal to ridicule.

Appeal to ridicule or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration. ... 1 KB (186 words) - 08:46, 28 May 2014

The only use by Wikipedia of a political "forgone conclusion" is when the field is vacant of a majority of opposition candidates, a political leader concedes defeat before the vote or in the case of a virtual dictatorship.

Exempli Gratia: Manitoba general election, 1941 The coalition's victory was a foregone conclusion: in most constituencies, there were no anti-coalition candidates. The opposition came mostly from anti-coalition dissidents in the governing parties. These candidates did not run a coordinated campaign, and did not seriously threaten the government.

New South Wales state election campaign, 2007 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Main article: New South Wales state election, 2007 Flag of New South Wales.svg Election campaign, 2007 An election campaign was held ahead of a general election for the 54th Parliament of New South Wales on Saturday, 24 March 2007. The result—a win for the social-democratic Australian Labor Party and its new leader Morris Iemma—was widely perceived as a foregone conclusion, with opposition leader Peter Debnam conceding as much the week before the poll.

That being stated, a further attempt to deal strictly with the subject matter of this motion to delete is fully in order.MiJoH-C (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CS.--Deletapedia (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak/Delete When using the subject's previous name I was able to dig up many articles and quite a few of them were not simple mentions but articles mostly dedicated to the person in question so I see some notability here but we must contrast that against 'politician.' A person does not necessarily need to win an election to become part of the 'enduring political history' of a city or nation (Emperor Norton for example) but I see none of that in this particular case. Orasis (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For this. "Some notability" as stated above has come a long long way from none! It starts to peel off only the very first layer of the onion skin of what the Wikipedia article "Michael Houlton" states in its opening sentence. "Michael Houlton was a Canadian political activist." and consider that in addition as a citizen, I, Michael John Houlton-Charette, more commonly known as Michael John Charette, am still a Canadian political activist!

The Wikipedia article "Activism" states that "Activism consists of efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental change, or stasis. Various forms of activism range from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, political campaigning" "Activists are also public watchdogs and whistle blowers, attempting to understand all the actions of every form of government that acts in the name of the people: all government must be accountable to oversight and transparency. Activism is an engaged citizenry." It goes on to include that activists "lobby" .

The first sentence of the motion to delete this article (below) is quite incomplete.

"Biography of a person notable only as an unsuccessful candidate for municipal office, and as the leader of an unregistered political party which never actually contested a partisan election and doesn't have a Wikipedia article to redirect him to."

The complete list of my Wikipedia linked electoral political activism is as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississauga_South "Canadian Federal Election, 1972 held on October 30, Michael Houlton" "Canadian federal election, 1980 held on February 18, Michael John Charette" "Canadian Federal Election, 1993 held on October 25, Michael John Charette"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Centre "By-election on October 16, 1978 Michael John Houlton" "Canadian federal election, 1979 held on May 22, Michael John Charette"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_municipal_election, held on November 13_1978 "Capital Ward, Michael John Houlton"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_5_(Mississauga) "External Link 1994 - pdf" Mississauga Municipal Election November 14th, 1994, Candidate for Mayor, Michael John Charette placed 4th of 7 candidates with 1,373 votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_municipal_election,_1997 (held November 10) Candidate "for Mayor, City of Toronto" - Michael John Houlton-Charette

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Liberal_Party_leadership_elections "1973 leadership convention (Held on October 28, 1973.) Michael Houlton" "1976 leadership convention (Held on January 25, 1976.) Michael Houlton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election,_1977 Ottawa-South (held on June 9th) Michael Houlton

MiJoH-C (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails wp:politician. Has been an unsuccessful candidate in a few elections, as listed above. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/few Although indefinite in nature, a few is usually more than two (two often being referred to as "a couple of"), and less than "several". Few is grammatically affirmative but semantically negative...

To be kind, your first edit on record (less than a few, one to be exact, this one) is a very shallow type of put down. It may have involved checking out a "few" of the political campaigns listed above, but examining all 11 would be quite an in depth undertaking. In just two Ontario Liberal Leadership campaigns, I attended, addressed and received coverage at over 50 all-candidates meetings across an area the size of the U.K. that culminated with a 25 minute continuous direct unedited nationally televised CBC broadcast, each. They are all archived! In 1973 I received a standing ovation from some 3,000 people in the ballroom of the Royal York Hotel that caused such a buzz that Robert Nixon, the winner and future Treasurer of Ontario, spent the first 5 minutes of his keynote convention speech addressing "Michael John Houlton" and this ideological and persistent point from my campaign. "There are opponents, there are political opponents...but, they're not enemies... and he's right!" MiJoH-C (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — MiJoH-C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It doesn't matter whether you ran in a "few" elections or a hundred. As I've already explained above, our inclusion rules for politicians only grant an entitlement to keep an article on here to people who have won an election and thereby held a notable office — a person does not qualify for an article on here for simply running in elections that they didn't win. Nor does a person qualify for an article on here for merely being a candidate for the leadership of a political party — if you cannot properly source that they already passed our inclusion rules before they became a candidate (e.g. by already being a sitting MP or MPP), then they would have to win the leadership, not just run for it, to become a valid article topic on here. (And even that only applies to major political parties which have actually held seats in a legislative body — it does not apply to small "fringe" parties that only run a few candidates and don't win anywhere.)

You still have yet to provide any substantive evidence, consistent with our content and inclusion rules, of why you would qualify for an encyclopedia article. You appear, rather, to be taking this discussion as a personal affront to your self-image, which is not helpful and has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content and inclusion rules. We don't keep articles just because the subject wants to have an article on Wikipedia — we keep articles that are properly compliant with our inclusion and sourcing and content rules. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia does not require election for notability in regards to politicians "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Also... "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." --This person has had press coverage from 1980 until 2013. 33 years of non-trivial coverage may be notable. We have Political activist BLP's with far, far less press coverage. We also must remember that notability is not temporary. I am now on the fence. Orasis (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Lacks the significant coverage required for GNG and doesn't meet the notability requirements for politicians. Merely running for office is not enough to show notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so! You have an article about an unelected independent candidate whose distinction appears to be only that he's run in so many elections and though "unelected" is listed in all of these categories Categories: Living people Independent candidates in the 1979 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 1980 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 1984 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 1988 Canadian federal election Abolitionist Party of Canada candidates in the 1993 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 1997 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 2000 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election Independent candidates in the 2006 Canadian federal election Canadian political party leaders Carleton University alumni Canadian social crediters People from Rouyn-Noranda Politicians from Ottawa 1951 births Independent candidates in Ontario provincial elections Canadian cannabis activists Canadian gamblers

Now when the category of "Poltical Activist" is searched for Canada and virtually every other open democratic society, well over 50% of the people who appear on my Wikipedia searches have never been elected, some never have even run for political office, yet they have an article, like for myself, that describes them as "political activists".

Deductive reasoning contends that you cannot author so many inaccurate personal affronts laden with some rather unusually caustic sarcasm in you earlier postings and because I must insist on facts, and back them up in my defense of you, that I'm taking it as some kind of "a personal affront to your (read my) self-image." by simply responding.

Friendly banter aside, I do very much appreciate you taking your time and energy to help direct us in this discussion. As a Canadian and an unabashed "homer" I admire your work and position within the annals of Wikipedia, but as an archived activist in some very key areas in the landscape of Canada's political spectrum, I see your effort as an affront to my value as an active catalyst to Canada's recent evolution. E.G. Front Page Picture in Le Devoir November 23 1994, On the 22nd, I confronted Premier Jacques Parizeau with a pointed question in his Royal York Canadian Club press conference about "The next referendum..."

"What about the last referendum!" I challenged, "Don't you trust the will of the Québec people! Is it not good enough for you!" He completely silenced himself, stormed out of the room and was heard wailing for a week, all the way from The National Assembly. I finished his press conference for him to the very last journalist. With constitution in hand, I extolled the masterpiece of Sir George-Étienne Cartier's "Indivisible Federation" as opposed to Canada's dangerously all too often egregiously misstated, supposed Confederation. Je me souviens! MiJoH-C (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree. After researching into this person I do believe that he meets the general notability guideline criteria but not the criteria for politicians. As a politician is this person notable? No. As a Political activist I do believe that it is highly probable and I have read BLP's (again) that have received, far, far less non-trivial media coverage from reliable sources. That said I think the article needs to be improved. Orasis (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're still missing the key distinction here. The candidate you're talking about, John Turmel, does not have an article because he ran as an election candidate and lost — he has an article because he's listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the person who has run the largest number of non-winning election campaigns in the entirety of recorded human history. Getting an article because an international media source has singled out his 82 non-winning electoral campaigns as a unique accomplishment is a "special case" situation that's unique to him alone, not a precedent which would allow everybody who ever ran as a non-winning candidate to claim entitlement to keep a poorly sourced Wikipedia article — it's the holding of a recognized world record, not the fact that his name has been on a ballot, that gets him over the bar.

And apart from him, every single person in any of those "candidates" categories you mention is somebody who was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for something else (e.g. having previously served in a provincial legislature, being a notable writer or athlete or lawyer, etc.) separately from also happening to have been an unsuccessful federal election candidate. None of them has an article because they ran in a federal election and lost — they have articles because they attained notability for other things independently of being federal election candidates. The candidacy is merely a minor extra detail about a person who already qualified for an article for some other reason, and does not constitute evidence that any unelected candidate is entitled to keep an article on here just for having been a candidate. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And if you find anybody who doesn't fit that criterion, and is claiming notability solely for having been an unelected candidate in a federal election without any other evidence of notability for some other reason independent of the candidacy, then they're completely eligible for deletion too. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this User:Orasis and of course I totally concur with your assessment of a somewhat sticky situation. It allows me to take in a rather deep intellectual breath of the fresh air of intelligence that you have provided. What is really amazing is that my minor edit of punctuation was briefly interrupted at exactly the same moment as your welcome offering.MiJoH-C (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note that "agrees with me" is not the definition of "intelligence", and "disagrees with me" is not the definition of its lack. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, also in kind, is that "agree with me" is a quote totally invented by User:Bearcat and does not nearly reflect my comment on the previous posting. What I did post was that "I totally concur" with the subjective assessment by fellow editor, User:Orasis, who appears to have done a great deal of research into the subject of this article. If you would like a personal quote from me that reflects some kind of collective intelligence, try "Criticism is the polish of excellence!"

I don't see what good it does to surplant your comment, User:Bearcat, in a different chronological order than it occurred. Most of the archived publications have absolutely nothing to do with elections at all. When combined together with those researched under Michael Houlton 1971-1980; plus those researched under Michael John Charette and Michael John Houlton-Charette 1980-2014, it ads up to 43 years of continuous notability, only keystrokes away.MiJoH-C (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in Wikipedia discussion pages are not threaded in purely chronological order; if comment C is in response to comment A, rather than a new discussion, then it goes directly after Comment A even if an entirely unrelated Comment B was posted before it. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted and appreciated! Considering changing my User name to Grasshopper but it's sure to be already taken.

Please allow me to link you directly to the Canadian Library of Parliament's pre-eminent archive of record, Hansard, Nov. 26 1973, The 29th Parliament, 1st Session, Volume 8, Question No. 2177 on The Order Paper, page 8111 bottom right and page 8112 top left, where a half page question and its dubious answer, documents a three year effort to make a single application to Industry Canada for help to give recognition to Canadian-Owned business. Notable coverage for the subject Michael J. Houlton was focused on the fact that in all of the government agencies under the watchful eye of Members of Parliament and the media, no application was permitted. When question #2177 is coupled with a previous question #1891, Hansard May 9th 1973, Order Paper, it became perfectly clear that I was being systematically lied to by my own government both on record and for the record. Once question No. 2177 was printed in early June/73 I decided to take my case directly onto the floor of the House of Commons on June 21st. "I demand Freedom of Speech! I've got something to say, and I'm going to say it!" This protest was covered the next day on the front page of The Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Journal, throughout the wire service and the rest of the electronic media.

http://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2901_08/3?r=0&s=1

That being just the beginning! MiJoH-C (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)MiJoH-C (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bethenny (TV series). Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sirens of Soho[edit]

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

Per criterion #10 of WP:MUSIC: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)"

This band's only claim to notability is having performed the theme song for the talk show Bethenny. There's no other third-party independent sources I could find for this group. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While you may not know of the group, it meets criterion #10, and the song is available on iTunes. Don Williams (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the group should redirect to the Bethenny TV show article instead. Just because a song is available on iTunes doesn't make a band notable. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge, per nom. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Delete and merge" is not an acceptable action: if any content is merged, a redirect must be left behind to preserve the edit history. To do otherwise violates the licensing conditions. — Gwalla | Talk 16:09, 5 September 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANC Today[edit]

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

Non-notable web newsletter. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep The publication ANC Today does meet WP:WEB and WP:NJournals, there are many independent and verifiable references that quote ANC Today
- [28]
- [29]
- [30]
- [31]
- [32]

Wayne Jayes (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a party newsletter so of course it is used to cite speeches and declarations from notable politicians, but that doesn't mean the publication in itself is also notable.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to be significantly discussed in independent, reliable sources. Sure this online newsletter is cited occasionally, that is what Wayne Jayes has listed above, namely citations to particular articles/columns that have appeared in ANC Today, such as a cite to Mbeki's March 2007 "Letter from the President". Wayne Jayes also lists (as #5) the sole citation in the article, which is two paragraphs on the founding of the online newsletter followed by a Mbeki quote from the first issue. This newsletter can be mentioned in the ANC article without distorting it. --Bejnar (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with ANC. The subject matter overlaps greatly with the policies and views of the ANC and the interested reader may like to read about it on the ANC page. The content as yet is hardly enough to fill a paragraph. JMK (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is the official publication of the party, albeit online. The article can be expanded. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually unless someone finds a second reliable source that cover the publication, the article cannot be expanded. Also I don't believe that being a "house organ" is a basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More references[edit]

Fourie, P.J. (July 2002). "Rethinking the role of the media in South Africa : research article". Communicare : Journal for Communication Sciences in Southern Africa. 21 (1): 17–40. ISSN 0259-0069. Retrieved 2014-09-11.
Fourie, Pieter J. (2008). Media Studies Volume 2: Policy, management and media representation (second ed.). Cape Town: Juta and Company. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-7021-7675-3.
Semetko, Holli A; Scammell, Margaret (2012). The SAGE Handbook of Political Communication. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-4462-6598-7.
Wasserman, Herman; de Beer, Arnold S. (2005). "A Fragile Affair: The Relationship Between the Mainstream Media and Government in Post-Apartheid South Africa". Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 20 (2–3): 192–208. doi:10.1080/08900523.2005.9679708. ISSN 0890-0523.
Wasserman, Herman (2005). "Debating the media, shaping identity: Postcolonial discourse and public criticism". Communicatio. 31 (1): 49–60. doi:10.1080/02500160508538011. ISSN 0250-0167.
Duncan, Jane (2009). "The uses and abuses of political economy: The ANC's media policy". Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa. 70 (1): 1–30. doi:10.1353/trn.0.0039. ISSN 1726-1368.
Chuma, Wallace (2006). "The Limits and Possibilities of Virtual Political Communication in Transforming South Africa: A Case Study of ANC Today and SA Today" (PDF). Intercultural Communication Studies. 15 (2). Retrieved 2014-09-11.

Wayne Jayes (talk) 15:03, 11 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list entitled "more references" is a little disingenuous as #2 above is the single independent RS listed in the article, and previously listed here by Wayne Jayes in his first list. #1 is just an earlier version of Fourie (2008), while Wasserman so far as I can tell just repeats Fourie. However, the last item, the Chuma article, is in fact a new independent secondary source that has new information. I could not get a hold of a copy of the Duncan article to see what it held. --Bejnar (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga South Africa[edit]

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

Incoherent article, reads like a personal essay. No reliable sources - Yoga SA is not an organisation Gbawden (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is mostly made up. There is a list of Buddhists who visited South Africa, but Buddhism is not Yoga. «"Yoga in South Africa" started in the 1940s, to become an important source of wellness in country» is just a mess. Spumuq (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and Spumuq, it's an incoherent mess, not an article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not of encyclopaedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmacmillan (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez Nazeri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician. All sources are self-pub. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has The Washington Post been self-published? 82.9.185.151 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per that source and others found by the Google Books search linked above. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some more reliable news articles here. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep See Washington Post article and PBS Interview along with numerous other readily available resources on-line clearly documenting notability. His record was released on Sony Classical and per Billboard website, appears to have peaked at number 7 (if I am reading chart correctly?) Encouragement is given to reviewers of articles with old notability tags to do more thorough research prior to listing them for AfD. --—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe article itself even points out that the recording was released to high acclaim on a major label, so that does not even require any research done on the part of the AfD nominator. --—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:21, 17 September 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 12:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NoooN[edit]

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

There are only claims, not facts, about this subject's notability. Λeternus ^(talk) 22:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see how this group could possibly meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The facts are in the article. Numtek (talk)

For them for to be "facts" we require that they be verified by independent reliable sources. Otherwise they remain "claims". Beyond any facts or claims we still need evidence that the organisation is notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here you go. This is the results.txt of Assembly 1995: https://www.scene.org/file.php?file=%2Fparties%2F1995%2Fassembly95%2Fresults.txt&fileinfo Numtek (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is that single line supposed to be significant coverage of? St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that they won first prize in the PC demo competition at Assembly 1995. Another first place include best graphics at Solskogen 2009 and a few runner ups.[33] // Liftarn (talk)

Then we would need evidence to support the suggestion that either of those are awards significant enough to confer some form of notability. Because we're nowhere near WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's only the world's largest gathering of demo programmers.[34] It's about the equivalent of winning an Oscar for an actor. // Liftarn (talk)

The difference is, every time an Oscar is awarded, there are tens and tens of news articles published about the winners, making the winners notable. No such articles seem to exist about Assembly winners, or at least not about NoooN. -- intgr [talk] 12:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we take a hint from WP:MUSBIO it enough to "Has won or placed in a major music competition.". I see no reason to hold demo groups to a different standard. // Liftarn (talk)

Ok, ignoring the fact that demogroups are not bands, I think it's a huge leap to claim that the Assembly competition is comparable to major music competitions. Sure, it may be the largest democompo, but compared to music competitions it's just a tiny niche.

That MUSBIO clause dates back to at least 2006, back when this stuff was still being figured out. I disagree with clauses that let people "weasel out" from creating verifiable articles. But it hasn't been a big problem for music articles because "major" music events generate sufficient media coverage to satisfy notability anyway. You cannot say the same for democompos, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

To demonstrate this point, a quick Google News search test finds 1 result for "assembly summer 2014" (and it's just a passing mention), compared to 2600 for "eurovision song contest 2014". For a normal Google search (not news) the numbers are 32,100 vs 20 million. -- intgr [talk] 14:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a difference. The Eurovision is a song competition. A large one, but not the largest. Assembly is the largest demo party. That a mainstream event and a subculture event does not get as much media coverage is no wonder and still not a valid reason for deletion. // Liftarn (talk)

The reasons are listed at WP:WHYN. Long story short, writing a fair and verifiable Wikipedia article is impossible about subjects that don't satisfy notability. It's only possible for someone with a close connection with the subject, or based on hearsay, both of which lead to abuse. -- intgr [talk] 20:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As we have established notability (they won first prize in the major demo competition). We have reliable sources for that (not as much as for a Eurovision winner, but still). So what's the problem? Please see WP:NONPROFIT. // Liftarn (talk)

We have established that Assembly is not comparable to major music competitions, demogroups are not bands, and reliable sources with significant coverage don't exist. Winning contests if there's no significant media coverage doesn't improve notability at all.

If I host the world's largest nose-picking contest and publish the results on the web, that doesn't make the winner notable. Being the largest at something is irrelevant, that's not how notability works, sorry. -- intgr [talk] 08:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two points are irrelevant for this discussion and we do have reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

Those sources don't provide the subject with significant coverage and so what they do provide isn't enough to substantiate notability per WP:ORGDEPTH which is the standard we should be applying (rather than trying to shoehorn WP:BAND or something else unrelated). We have a consensus-established standard for the notability of groups and without significant coverage attesting to the notability of this group, it isn't notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have established that NoooN have won first prize in the major demo competition (supported by reliable sources). We also have (via reliable sources) established that the Assembly party is indeed very notable. But perhaps we do need a new notability guideline for demoscene related articles or perhaps consideration should be given to a form of notability which takes into account the wider context in which that subject exists. // Liftarn (talk)

Well, we've established that they've won an award but there's not much there to establish that its a notable award or that winning it might contribute to notability. As pointed out above, winning an award (even the major award) doesn't confer automatic notability. In fact, proponents have conceded that the whole subject exists within a sub-culture. You're free to propose a new Special Notability Guideline but one doesn't exist now and so for now, this doesn't meet WP's existing and established inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have (via reliable sources) established that they have won a major award and that the award is notable. I would say that it (together with a few other things) do make them notable. // Liftarn (talk)

What do we have to substantiate the claim that the award itself is either "notable" (though that still wouldn't mean that winning one would make the group notable) or "major" (recognised by those outside a niche sub-culture as being so). Being notable inside a walled garden isn't the same thing as being "Wikipedia notable". St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:15, 12 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I think it quite easy, www.scene.org is the main source for anything demoscene-releated, so just start your search there. You don't need hearsay and some googling will lead you straight to that site. so anyone is able to find the relevant data. Also, comparing the press coverage of Assembly with the Euovision song festival is rather silly. Creative subcultures, however relevant they are to the world, get less press per definition. If they got the same media-coverage as the Euroviison Song Festival, it wouldn't be a subculture no? In it's own right winning Assembly is as hard as winning an Oscar or an Emmy. You don't get there without 6-10+ years of dedicated hard work. It is the top of the bill, the end of the line. The only thing that could compare were the scene.org awards, and since they stopped all that is left now to compare would be winning first price at Revision, although the financial benefits are less, it is still a major achievement. It would be a shame to see this list grow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viznut/Deletionist_attacks_against_demoscene_articles Numtek (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to vote twice. Unfortunately, we do require "press" coverage to demonstrate "relevance" to the world, so to speak. It's a problem faced by a great many sub-cultures around here. The reality is that Wikepedia's guidelines don't favour sub-cultures. But equating community consensus to delete things on the basis of non-notability with "vandalism" is just ridiculous. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the votes were up again as well. Sorry, My bad. But try to imagine how it feels if your entire subculture gets deleted from wikipedia on an atricle-by-article basis. Yeah, that feels like vandalism. In the end there is nothing left, and there is no valid reason to break down an destroy the work of others. If that isn't vandalism, how else could this best be discribed? Numtek (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The rules" or "just the way things work around here". In reality, someone (or a group of someones) spent time creating articles about non-notable things without ever bothering to investigate policies and procedures. It's unfair to call others in the Wikipedia community "vandals" because of their laziness. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable and the rest is just wikilawyering. // Liftarn (talk)

LOL. When did the most basic reading of policy become "wikilawyering"? St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reason stated above. They have won several prizes including a first price at the largest demo party in the world. // Liftarn (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:WHYN is persuasive here. There is not adequate reliable coverage to write a verifiable article on this topic. ~KvnG 16:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only mainstream coverage I could find was a mention in a WP:VG/RS search. The rest is in niche and user-submitted websites without editorial control (scene.org, Pouet, demoscene.tv). There is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. No suitable redirect targets. (?) czar ♔ 19:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox (Amiga demogroup)[edit]

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

Non-notable demogroup. Λeternus ^(talk) 21:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "notable" --Lambdacore (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability. --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned on page 109 of this book in connection with their publication European Top 20. I suggest they may be a plausible redirect to a broader topic. James500 (talk) 10:50, 7 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 11 September 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 12:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It will be difficult to assess notability using internet searches of a group that started in 1987 and is no longer with us. ~KvnG 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 desirability of a redirect or otherwise to Chouannerie left to editorial discretion and is not a part of this close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chouan family[edit]

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

Obviously non-notable. Run-of-the-mill family document. Seems like it is only used for private use or publicity. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, surely this page was not intended for publicity (the family looks extincted from centuries). And I think that, being the Chouannerie a very important topic in the French history, the family at the roots of it is notable as well. By the way, the page is rated as a Mid-importance topic on the WikiProject France.--Lal.sacienne (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not being used for publicity, but it needs a lot of clean-up, perhaps userfication. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 10 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:14, 11 September 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 12:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a genealogy. That is all this article appears to be. If Charles X thought so highly of Jean Cottereau/Jean Chouan, that should be covered in that article, not here. Much of this article is duplicated there. --Bejnar (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the Columbia Encyclopedia has an entry for the Chouan family that reads:

peasants of W France who rose against the French Revolutionary government in 1793. One of their first leaders was Jean Cottereau, traditionally nicknamed Jean Chouan, marquis de La Rouerie [John the owl, marquess of Mischief], and the Chouans supposedly used the hoot of an owl as a signal. The movement eventually merged with the contemporary rising in the Vendée . The Chouans were motivated by their opposition to specific policies of the new republican government that interfered with their way of life, including religious policy and enforcement of the conscription laws. The name Chouannerie continued to be used in reference to guerrilla warfare that lasted until Napoleon. The so-called Petite Chouannerie persisted until 1815, when Napoleon was forced to divert troops from Waterloo to quell it. Honoré de Balzac's novel Les Chouans pictures these people vividly.

I do not think that we should compromise our standards, although this does suggest that other sources are out there for a very different article, which I believe is the one at Chouannerie. Balzac wrote a semi-historical novel Les Chouans about Jean Cottereau/Jean Chouan that helped spread the legend of Jean Chouan. He was nicknamed "Chouan" — a corruption of the French chatuant, (screech owl) — because of his use of the "hoot" as a secret call. --Bejnar (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stone Buildings. No prejudice against speedy renomination due to low participation, but do mind that the attribution history of the content already merged to Stone Buildings (during this AfD) must be preserved. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 20:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11 Stone Buildings[edit]

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

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serious consideration should be given to the possibility of merging this article and 5 Stone Buildings into a single article at Stone Buildings, dealing with the entire street, which is likely to be notable. James500 (talk) 02:42, 10 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I think Stone Buildings probably has a chapter in this. They were constructed in 1774 by Sir Robert Taylor. When one feeds that into GBooks one gets quite a few results quickly including things like this. Palladian design is highly regarded. Pitt the Younger had chambers there. Appears as a setting in a novel by Anthony Trollope. And so forth. I think Stone Buildings is notable and the merger, redirect and rewrite I proposed should go ahead. James500 (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged and redirected this page to Stone Buildings. I will be happy with that outcome. James500 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stone Buildings. A history merge might be appropriate. James500 (talk) 04:15, 19 September 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 12:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An article that relys on the dm to show notabilityu is always in trouble sothe delete views here have more weight Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Servicing Stop[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable company; unable to find reliable resources to substantiate notability. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference from the Daily Mail further to the BBC reference added - would this not be enough? EDIT I have also added a published ruling from the Advertising Standards Agency Cwhitty83 (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail article is (I would strongly guess) native advertising for the GPS tracking system. The ASA ruling, while interesting, does not really help towards making the company notable. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Daily Mail not a reliable independent source? There is no evidence to suggest the tracking company paid the Daily Mail to publish the story, it also featured in The Sun and Sunday Times Driving Section although I am having trouble locating the links to this. The ASA ruling reinforces the fact the company has an advertising presence in the UK and whilst not everyone company that advertise on TV and Radio has the right to a Wiki Page the fact that this company has featured in Dragons Den and Dragons Den where are they now (BBC) I believe suggests there is enough notability. Cwhitty83 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspress article added so there are now in total 6 references. Cwhitty83 (talk) 16:14, 17 September 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 12:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Most of this article is fluff. Almost everything that could verify notability of the subject is unverified, while most of the referenced material doesn't speak to the notability of this company. Reference 1 is about the legislation and doesn't mention the company. References 2 and 4 are about the programmes the directors appeared in, not the company and are not in-depth coverage. Reference 3 is a press-release and so is not independent coverage. Reference 5 is a reliable source for the statement about the advert, but having a single ASA judgement against you does nothing to establish notability. Reference 6 again doesn't speak about the notability of the company at all - Servicing Stop barely gets a mention and rightly so as they had almost nothing to do with this (mechanic breaks the speed limit while collecting a car for repair). The Daily Mail is only a borderline reliable source, as it's a tabloid newspaper with a reputation for very heavily spinning stories towards a sensationalist angle that supports their political agenda. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Belling[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:MUSIC guidelines BMIComp 17:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing out there about him, but he does have common names, so might have missed something. Bgwhite (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Something out there about him, he does have common names, you did miss something. Scarlum (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scarlum, since you're the article's author and are more familiar with the subject, perhaps you can point to sources that may have been missed? BMIComp 01:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's fair to say the article has established common ground on Wikipedia with its Users based on this 7 day discussion period. Updating to be continued. Scarlum (talk) 04:08, 9 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 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 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afendi Muteki[edit]

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

Looks like a unotable blogger. Wgolf (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-dang right after I put that I noticed he wrote 2 books, not sure how notable they are, but wish I noticed that right before. Wgolf (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 5 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:22, 11 September 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 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not an expert on this person but with two publish books, he's a keeper. The article needs a lot of work, however, and sources. Can someone translate that book title? I have no idea what that language is and neither did Google.Kobuu (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 don't see any refutation that there is not sufficient third-party significant coverage about the subject itself. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hype Magazine[edit]

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

Calls itself a magazine but it's really a PR service. Want a "featured article placement with The Hype Magazine", buy the platinum package [35]. Want to be featured in the "Who Is" section, buy the Featured Client package [36]. Is this a notable PR service? The awards are not major. There is a lack of independent coverage of this service in the article and a search found nothing better. So not notable. This article should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duffbeerforme, The Hype Magazine is sold in major retail stores across the United States including Barnes and Noble, Target, K-Mart, etc., and store locations can be found via the locator link provided by their distributor Kable Distribution Services. ^[1] The fact that they offer promotional services, which is standard amongst entertainment magazines, like the source magazine which charges over 10k for a spread in their outlet according to their media kit, XXL and other urban based entertainment magazines seem to follow a different business model when it comes to attracting advertisers, etc.Chastized (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Distribution Services, Kable. "Where's My Magazine". thehypemagazine.com. Kable Distribution Services, Inc. Retrieved 2 September 2014.

I am not certain why a magazine that markets itself and its pricing would be considered a PR service rather than what it is.Chastized (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most magazines offer PR services, that's not new. The sources indicate that they have been involved with celebrities (like, Nick Cannon and Jody Watley), as well as been nominated for awards "The Southern Entertainment Awards" and "SCM Awards". There doesn't really seem to be a reason to credibly doubt the notability of this article's subject. XiuBouLin (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously trying to suggest they are notable because they wrote about notable celebrities? WP:NOTINHERITED. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the "awards", Southern Entertainment Awards and SCM Awards are clearly not major awards. They don't even look like credible awards. The nomination for best ballot stuffing magazine goes to Hype. "You may nominate yourself as many times as you want every 24 hours." SCM Awards [37]. "Anyone w/ a “valid” email address can nominate an individual. Spins, Sales, etc. do not dictate who makes or doesn’t make the ballot!" SEA [38]. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 10 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable hype service with a print component and no evidence whatsoever of actual notability as we define it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a national print publication available in major retailers like Barnes and Noble, Marsh's, Target, 7-Eleven, K-Mart AND is one of the few American Magazine distributed in foreign countries such as Germany it its original language. The magazine is of the same ilk and importance as Rollingstone, Vibe, Jet, Billboard, Music Connection, etc. While it DOES sell adverts, so do each and every other magazine, newspaper or periodical listed in Wikipedia. Not sure why the persecution of this particular magazine, which interviews not only celebrities but is active as a community resource. Check their Hype Cares link, this is not just another fly-by night magazine and its awards and accolades are reputable.Chastized (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THM don't just sell adverts, they sell articles and on at least one occasion given the cover to a PR client. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 15 September 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 12:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not much reliable third party info available about this "magazine", which is primarily a web site ("digital version") based on their own circulation numbers. They haven't won any awards; they're just on a long list of "nominees" for them. The reference from AudioMack is labelled, on AudioMack, as "Uploaded On Aug 17, 2014 By: The Hype Magazine". The Nick Cannon interview is a link back to AudioMack. Just about everything online about Hype originated with, well, their own hype. They've been publishing for less than a year. They might be notable someday, but not yet. John Nagle (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current sources are mostly garbage. Passing mentions or blurbs from wannabes who are bragging about appearing on the cover. Looking for sources, it appears that there is a huge amount of self-promotion from the magazine, and a lot of artists using the magazine as a PR platform, but very little independent coverage of the magazine. Grayfell (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Gray Doane[edit]

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

lots of puffery and namedropping, of which only one has an article on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: not in Internet age so sources may be hard to find. That said, his google hits are either WP mirrors or not useful, the two Gbooks hits are namechecks in a philately journal. The input of someone with access to American newspaper archives would be helpful. BethNaught (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This: http://stamps.org/HOF-1946#Doane shows that he was once thought very important and suggests that pre-internet sources should be available to justify the article. Probably in old copies of the American Philatelist. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 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 12:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: APS Hall of Fame seems notable enough for me. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to minimal participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Tank Guitar[edit]

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

An instrument which doesn't appear to be notable. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing I could find doesn't rise to ... leaving me confident that it even exists. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:46, 19 September 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 12:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bug Genie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable software. Google search only turns up one useful source, while the rest appear to be distribution or demo sites. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 4 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 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 12:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional sources available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bug Genie (2nd nomination). ~KvnG 16:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sindi Lacej[edit]

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

Only 1 film so far, being a child star someday I'm sure she will deserve her own article. But not today. (though it does say the film received critical acclaim, its not like she won or was even nominated anything for it) so I think she just falls under Too soon for now. Wgolf (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Forgiveness of Blood. The film has received plenty of coverage, and Lacej gets a lot of positive mentions for her performance, but I found no significant coverage of her, so a redirect to the film for now seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 08:03, 9 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 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 12:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Davis Schneiderman. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Cats (film)[edit]

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

Unotable short film. Can't find anything that makes it notable, nobody notable worked on it, nothing special with the film. Wgolf (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This film is notable only as an extension of Davis Schneiderman's work in surrealism and specifically his book on the Exquisite Corpse. It should not have its own article, but should be merged into his article since he is the only notable artist involved. 108.232.14.226 (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 6 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 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 12:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Redirect to co-dorector Davis Schneiderman. Mention or merge or include whatever is sourcable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sood[edit]

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

All the information in the article is based on a self published source (the website of Sood Sabha, Chandigarh). This violates wikipedia's Wikipedia:SPS guidelines.

I googled for some claims made by the article but could not find any reference to them apart from Sood Sabha's website or a website which has just copy-pasted from it. Following are two such claims

In 331 BC, after defeating Poras, Alexander's invasion and entry into India at the banks of River Beas was stopped by the superior forces of Rai Shah Sood.

After the death of Alexander, the Sood reigned uninterrupted for some time, and extended their territory and influence to Alwara, Kashmir, Khandar, Sistan and to Yamuna on the other side. The kingdom was even extended up to Karachi. Indian sailors escorted by Sood forces used to trade with Basara, Istanbul, and Greece. There are records of 101 Sood Kingdoms with respective Rajas under the Sood Emperor of Alwara.

Almost all of the article is filled with unverifiable claims. I also googled some names mentioned in the article but could not find a reference to any of them. Following are the names that I searched: Manjan Rao, Bachira Rao, Reejh Rao, Anirudh Rao, Ana Rao, Kin Rao, Kin Rakha Gandal, Maru Desh, Kin Rakha Gandal, Queen Shub Devi Sood, Rana Rai Prashad Sood, Dewan Hari Singh Sood. Gaurav (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD : Sood

Strong Keep • The article is relying on self-published (non-reliable) sources but the topic is notable as per WP:notability. The references can be found at Sood. CutestPenguin^Hangout 05:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @User:Cutest Penguin

The article says that Alexander's entry into India was stopped by Rai Shah Sood. I think a king who stopped Alexander's entry into India would have more mentions than just Sood Sabha's website. This and other such dubious claims make me suspect the accuracy of Sood Sabha's website. Since the whole article is copy-pasted from this website, I don't think we should have anything in the article which is not supported by another source.
I also feel that the topic is notable. I would suggest rewriting the article while blanking it until rewritten (if blanking is not against Wikipedia's guidelines).
The link you provided does not have anything about history of Soods. --Gaurav (talk) 18:53, 9 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 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 12:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the community / lineage / clan this article is trying to address is synonymous with our article Sodha. However, what we have here is not usable content, and needs to be deleted. Many of the central claims here are simply not plausible. As volume after volume about Alexander the Great will explain, his progress was stopped at the River Beas, not by the "superior forces of Rai Shah Sood", but by a soft mutiny of his own forces, beset by injury, disease, and exhaustion, who refused to cross the river. Furthermore, the territory described as being controlled by the Sood cannot possibility have been so. Much of it is coterminous with the Nanda Empire -- the actual empire that would have awaited Alexander across the Beas -- and pretty much the entire area described would have actually been ruled by the Maurya Empire after Alexander's departure and death. Some of the details about Amarkot are legitimate, but some have no backing in reliable sources that I can find, and the timeline depicted here for events in Amarkot is confused at best. Many, if not all, of the claims here need better sourcing than a self-published website, WP:INDAFD or not. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find the above analysis by Squeamish Ossifrage convincing. I also googled several items mentioned in the article and found nothing relevant. Too much of the material there is likely to be invented to warrant trying to salvage the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The complete inability of anyone to point out reliable sources, even after two relistings, should be determinative here, since WP:V is nonnegotiable. As Squeamish Ossifrage points out, there is much that is clearly untrue in this article, and whatever might be factual is apparently unverifiable. Deor (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Cutest Penguin: I think this article is going to get WP:TNT'd. But do you think it should be replaced with a redirect to Sodha or left empty for someone to hopefully rewrite? --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not relevant if we can't write a verifiable article on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of the Force[edit]

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

Series of pulp-science fiction books. No references given, no claim to notability provided. I'm not finding independent non-trivial coverage in discriminate websites -- sure, the books show up in catalog-the-universe listings, but nothing that meets the criteria in WP:NBOOKS.a Mikeblas (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article in AFD is the index / overview article about a series of 9 books, each of which has an article (following copied from the AFD subject article):

Betrayal by Aaron Allston (Hardcover - released on May 30th, 2006)
Bloodlines by Karen Traviss (Released on August 29th, 2006)
Tempest by Troy Denning (Released on November 28th, 2006)
Exile by Aaron Allston (Released on February 27th, 2007)
Sacrifice by Karen Traviss (Hardcover - released on May 29th, 2007)
Inferno by Troy Denning (Released on August 28th, 2007)
Fury by Aaron Allston (Released on November 27th, 2007)
Revelation by Karen Traviss (Released on February 26th, 2008)
Invincible by Troy Denning (Hardcover - released on May 13, 2008)

I am uncomfortable about deleting elements of this series, i.e. just the index article now, separately. For one thing, if some books in the series are notable while others are not, then it could be useful to have the index/series article to redirect those others to. Let me acknowledge I am not really familiar with notability for books, but deleting the overview/index article alone seems hodgepodge and not part of a proper review. --do ncr am 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider:

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

--do ncr am 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively, per my comment above, especially that the series article is in effect a list-article of notable books. It is acceptable as a list-article. And I note that the Google newspapers link on the Inferno one brings me to this documentation that Inferno was at #7 on New York Times fiction bestsellers list at one point. Offhand it seems to me that the books and the series are probably wikipedia-notable, and that if some of the individual books should not be covered in separate articles, then they should be redirected to the series article, which should be kept. --do ncr am 15:19, 10 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yeah, I'd be inclined to keep this index article and maybe look at deleting any of the book articles where the book itself isn't notable. Note that at least one of these "pulp-science fiction books" made it onto the New York Times Best Seller list. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:53, 12 September 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 12:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per doncram, list article of notable books. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Johnston[edit]

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

No evidence of notability yet. Acting roles are unremarkable, beauty pageants results are not significant enough, Net Top Model career was short... Fram (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not convinced that any of the non-notable parts add up to make a notable whole. Some of the claims for notability are plain dishonest - "she has starred in..." which we then find out means "appeared (uncredited) in...". St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although previous article was indeed substandard, and hopefully improved as per WP:HEYMANN, with references here and here and here and here and here and here and here, suggesting she meets the WP:GNG. What is cool is how she really bombed on American Idol but keeps at it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, the references are about two different people. The American Idol person is a 22-year old (in 2010) substitute teacher from Texas. Miss Teen person is a 17-year old (in 2009) from Minnesota. I've reverted Tomwsulcer's additions that included American Idol. Bgwhite (talk) 04:58, 11 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the American Idol contestant with the same name. Still, this Vanessa Johnston has sufficient sources here and here and here and here which are multiple independent reliable nontrivial sources, and her Miss Teen Minnesota credentials are well documented, so in my view she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:43, 11 September 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 12:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per references provided by Tomwsulcer. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles are not that substantive. Vallarta Today, #4 on Tomwsulcer's list, is definitely trivial promoting Puerta vallarta because of a Johnson Tweet. #3 is "Good burp lands a role in Pepsi Max ad", #2 entitled "Who should wear the crown? Faith Schway has a knack for making pageant winners" is about Faith Schway, and has one small section about Johnson winning Miss teen. #1 "Lakeville teen navigates Hollywood" is the only one that is substantive, and all of #1 through #3 are home-town paper stuff, not broad coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♔ 21:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elixir (novel by Eric Walters)[edit]

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

I created this page when I was a newbie. Turns out, it seems to violate the guideline at WP:BKCRIT although it has been the subject of only one reliable source. [39] ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you wish to delete this as the author then you can do so by adding db-g7 if 2 curly braces (see WP:CSD) Op47 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 September 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 23:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find where it'd been reviewed quite a few times, so it should now pass WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be excellent news! But can you point out to the links of the review? Thanks, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 11:58, 12 September 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 12:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The review links are here, here, here, and here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh lamba[edit]

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

Not notable entrepreneur, WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO issue [40]. PROD tag removed without explanation or improvements to the article. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. This article has also been speedy deleted twice per A7. SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for noticing, it's under Ramesh Lamba. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt - Failing general notable guidelines and it seems to be re-creation of previously (two-times) deleted article Ramesh Lamba as per WP:CSD#A7 by @CactusWriter and Accounting4Taste:. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt -- article fails WP:BIO. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources nor does it meet criteria for notability. Salt because it's the 4th recreation by an single purpose account interested only in adding the name to various WP articles. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. SPA created the article multiple times. Fails notability. I can't see significant third party coverage. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of commodity traders[edit]

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

PROD was removed without explanation. I believe this is a case of WP:LISTCRUFT. There is no context to this list - there is already a category which will suffice. Orphaned, nothing reaches here anyway Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator seems to dislike lists as a matter of principle but this is not our policy. WP:CLN explains that "these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. ... Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists". Note that the topic is notable per WP:LISTN as there are entire books such as Chalmin, Philippe (1987), Traders and Merchants: Panorama of International Commodity Trading, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 9783718604357 which document it in detail. Andrew (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP. List articles are complementary to categories and navigation templates, not inappropriately duplicative. This qualifies for an article per the existence of Category:Commodities traders. Also per WP:NOTDUP, "...arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Furthermore, the list provides a useful navigation aid per WP:LISTPURP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Deb per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charls Brown[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Stickee (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Could not find any supporting sources. Orasis (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have failed to find any indication of notability or reliable sources to support the article. BethNaught (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOR CLOSER: Should this be deleted, the article The Man You Want (Charls Brown album) will be eligible for CSD A9. BethNaught (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G11, shameless self promotion. (Blocked) creator name User:Richworksmedia matches his company name given in the article. Bazj (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jinotega. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jinotega, Jinotega[edit]

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

content fork of Jinotega The Banner talk 03:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is only one Jinotega Spumuq (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jinotega. There has been some tendency to separate articles in Latin America between the municipality and the town which is its administrative center of the same name; this may be what's happening here rather than a CFORK, but best merged unless or until something is written about any other place in the municipality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and redirect to Jinotega. No need for two articles on the same subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful into Jinotega, which is a better title as it does not contain unnecessary disambiguation, and is a lot better written as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please ask if anyone wants it userfying. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Vu[edit]

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

Article that has been deleted several times (all by this user) but under different names such as one being Julie Van Vu. Wgolf (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 - Both should also be recreation protected, Anyway per nom no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed-I just felt like also it was time to get a AFD up for this once and for all! Wgolf (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt this one, and salt Julie Van Vu. No evidence of notability. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with sources here and here and here and here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC) That said, the article needs revamping; if the community decides to keep it, then I'll try to get the article shipshape.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 11 September 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. The problem here is that she's only known for making a pilot episode of a TV series that hasn't yet officially started running. OutTV did run the pilot episode, but a full season has not yet run and the coverage isn't really about Vu, but about the TV show/pilot episode. I think that we could probably rationalize a page for the TV series/pilot, but right now a page on Vu is a little bit WP:TOOSOON. None of the coverage given by User:Tomwsulcer shows a depth of coverage for Vu specifically, as three of the sources talks about the show (and one is just a picture) and the last one is a news story where Vu is only mentioned in passing. The general rule of thumb when it comes to stuff like this is that if someone is only known for one role and hasn't received any coverage for themselves (and again, the news articles are predominantly about the show), then we would redirect to that show/film's article. I'll try to bang one out and once I do, I'll post it and change this to a redirect. Until then, this is just too soon. Once the show releases there's a chance that she'll gain more coverage, so if all else fails this should probably be userfied or moved to the draftspace and watched. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly recognize the potential for her to become sufficiently notable in the future, if and when the show actually gets a formal pickup announcement and coverage of it and her increase — in point of fact, as a Canadian who's actively involved in LGBT-related coverage I've had this show on my radar as a possible future article topic ever since it first started as a web series last year. Actual shooting on the television series isn't slated to begin until next year, so it's not there yet in terms of coverage, but my eye's certainly been and will continue to be on it. Similarly, the coverage of Julie Vu isn't there yet — Tomwsulcer's sources aren't really substantive coverage of her, but passing mentions of her name in coverage of the show's pilot — but she is likely to qualify once the show is closer to actually airing. I agree with Tokyogirl — sandbox in draft or user space for the time being. I'd even be willing to hang onto it in my sandbox if need be. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source articles are more about the pilot than the person. The page should be saved but I think it's a little too soon for a dedicated article. Orasis (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've created an article for the show here, but I'm slightly concerned about it. I'm tempted to put it in the mainspace since the pilot episode *did* air and that technically does fulfill the claims in the article, but I'd like a little more coverage just to be safe. If anyone thinks it's good enough (@Bearcat:, @MichaelQSchmidt:, @Orasis:, @Wgolf:) then I'm fine with it getting moved and Vu's article redirecting there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Tokyogirl, why didn't you ask for my opinion? A quick examination of your article Switch suggests it is ready for mainspace (enough sources to meet the GNG) but I still continue to think Julie Vu is notable as a subject. So keep both articles.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see enough substantive coverage of her in reliable sources for that — as noted by more than one user above, the sources you provided in this discussion are about the pilot, not about the person. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty damn good, but what would make the determinative difference for me between sandbox and articlespace is the announcement of a firm broadcast date for the actual series. A lot can happen between the commissioning of a pilot and the actual airing of a full series — minor or major rewrites and/or casting changes; the channel could decide that the new episodes aren't living up to the pilot's potential and so it's not going to air them at all; the channel could go entirely bankrupt and leave the air permanently. I can't speak for other parts of the world, but in North American television even getting a series order is not an absolute guarantee that the series will ever actually air for real. So with rare exceptions, Wikipedia doesn't normally create articles about series pilots — we wait until the broadcaster has officially announced at an upfronts presentation that the airing of the full series is no longer just tentatively planned, but has actually been confirmed. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but.... WP:NACTOR would seem to indicate that an entertainer needs multiple roles to pass. Vu, as far as I can see, is only known for a single television programme. Normally, I'd say that the article should be merged to the one on the series, but there is no article yet for the series. If/when one is created, this should be redirected there, unless Vu does other things. I would not object to userification in the meantime. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Porter[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY Not only does the page read as an advertisement but the sources are mostly from her own personal website. Also, the secondary sources do not make this person notable at all. If this article passes notability standards than that would mean that every single baker in the world with a small write up in the local news needs/deserves a Wikipedia biography. Orasis (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not finding anything that satisfies WP:GNG. An appearance on the TV show MasterChef is far from enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Clarityfiend: the article doesn't demonstrate notability. INeverCry 21:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject fails to show required notability per WP:GNG. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Mutemeri[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No notability at all. Wgolf (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Orasis (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Sikand[edit]

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

Actor with just 3 non notable roles. Wgolf (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NACTOR, or otherwise indicate notability. —innotata 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hameed Razi[edit]

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

Wow dang this has a lot of tags! Anyway has been tagged for over 5 years now and can't find anything that can say this guy is notable. Wgolf (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything that would make this person even slightly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 03:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viv Ivins[edit]

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

A fictional character with no reliable third person sources to justify a solo article therefore should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Child advocacy 360[edit]

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

An organization with a laudable purpose that never appears to have gone anywhere. - Richfife (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fort Wayne, Indiana. There is no presumption of notability under WP:NPLACE for this neighborhood, which fails to satisfy the general notabiity guideline through the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Redirect since there is no consensus to delete and no sourced content suitable for a merge. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manor Woods, Fort Wayne[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. It is possibly worth redirecting somewhere, but I'm unsure where the best redirect target would be. CAT:NN, particularly Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from August 2008 has numerous articles on places in Fort Wayne, which have been sitting with notability tags on them for over six years and I'm unsure if any of them can meet notability criteria. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Unquestionable disruption, WP:SK#2. Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPLACE. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VMS Mosaic. –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @VMS Mosaic:, @Davey2010:, how does it meet WP:NPLACE? NPLACE is not a guideline or policy, but an essay, and it states that: Larger neighborhoods are usually kept if their names are found to have verifiable widespread usage. Smaller suburbs are generally merged, being listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments). My understanding is that (by this essay, which we have to be careful about quoting at AfD), it should be merged, perhaps to Fort Wayne, unless it is established that it counts as a 'larger neighbourhood', in which case we would need sources to back it up that it is a larger neighbourhood and confirm 'verifiable widespread usage.' However, we should mainly be discussing the relevant guideline, which is Wikipedia:Places of local interest. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fort Wayne, Indiana. 'Automatic notability' applies primarily to populated places, a neighborhood doesn't fall under the Five Pillars' remit of Wikipedia-as-gazzetteer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fort Wayne, Indiana. Appears to be an unofficial/ungazetted neighbourhood that exists primarily by local convention. Such neighbourhoods can still be notable where they meet the WP:GNG, but this one doesn't seem to, I was only able to find a thin assortment of directory entries that refer to it. Merge not appropriate as the content is unsourced, but if something can be found to demonstrate its existence it may be worth a brief mention in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Wild at Heart (film). Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbie Peru[edit]

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

I could not establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Some reviews, some local coverage. Prod was removed by IP. Has been tagged for notability for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This sucks as it is obviously a real group from the sources, but none of them are reliable enough to meet WP:RS. The only one that I would consider WP:RS is the Manchester Evening News article and there really isn't much depth there to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added WP:NBAND criteria and citations in line with WP:RS - 77.108.147.42 (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable and most of the sources are not really sources. Tried looking for information on the band and came up pretty much empty-handed. If the sources cannot be improved, delete.Orasis (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wild at Heart (film). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Kostić[edit]

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

a director who has only done a couple non notable films. Wgolf (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marko Kostić has so far made two movies: Paper Prince, short movie and Paper Prince full movie. Both movies has won on some festivals and he is semiknown director in former Yu countries. Still, no matter how good the movie is, he is way to unknown still to have a page here. I fully suport the nom. Stepojevac (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. Orasis (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7DX (demoparty)[edit]

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

The subject of the article doesn't seem to be notable; it's missing reliable sourcing. Λeternus ^(talk) 21:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only mentions of this demoparty were on demoscene organization sites and user-contributed forums. No mentions in any reliable sources, and as such, there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Since 7DX is based in Turkey, there might be coverage in Turkish newspapers? If such sourcing is unearthed, please send a ping. (I'm also going to rename the disambiguation from (demo party) to (demoparty) based on its usage on WP.) czar ♔ 19:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holzer Permaculture[edit]

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

Wholly unreferenced. No evidence of any special notability. Difficult to actually understand what the article means (and the article acknowledges this) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 September 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is poorly written and unsourced. However, there are significant sources available, and this seems to be notable within the general subject of permaculture. Article needs rewritting and references, not deletion. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs more sources and better writing but definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 04:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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