< 24 August	26 August >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leo J. Shapiro & Associates[edit]

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

Unable to find multiple, independent sources providing in-depth, non-routine coverage as required by WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Although a google books search has lots of results, they are just being namechecked in stories about other subjects. They do not seem to be the primary subject of any reliable sources and the aggregate of their mentions does not amount to much of a story.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: pretty blatant promotional text. Quis separabit? 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: WP:PROMO WP:CORP WP:GNG --Jersey92 (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP and is clearly Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zach Rance (Big Brother)[edit]

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

A new user has created a bio for a reality tv contestant (finished 9th overall), who does not in any way meet the project's notability threshold, i.e. WP:N and WP:GNG. What scant coverage exists is sourced to Big Brother fansites and other news blogging type sources that provide a recap of the episodes, e.g. inquisitir.com, bustle.com, etc... (PS - I love how this bustle.com typo'ed "episode" in both the URL and the page title. Quality journalism... Tarc (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For one, new account because my last one got lost somewhere in cyberspace over the years, it happens. Regarding the article, in regards to a person such as the one in question, blogging and fansites are where the news is at because the Live Feeds and episodes of the show itself are the true source of most information. One cannot adjust said typos for the authors of articles. There are large amounts of information on this topic because of the enormous fan reaction to this person which is what spawned the article, which can be easily seen by searching news. The main purpose of the article is t the person, as well as the immense social media reaction that was received. In regards to the Notability (WP:N), the subject qualifies in all five points (WP:GNG). There is immense coverage in terms of social media about the topic and the article is continuously growing in information and sources, as multiple sources cover this person and the situations of which he is subject. Many other contestants of the same show also have articles documenting their response and future endeavors, of which many experts on the topic agree the subject will have. Cazzie09 (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, most houseguests do not get standalone articles. The winners do, and others that have received actual coverage in reliable sources for other matters (AAryn for widespread accusations of racism, Jenn for being a member of Kittie, and so on). Second, if you read though the GNG criteria, "immense coverage in social media" isn't a criteria. This project requires in-depth coverage by multiple, legitimate news medias outlets. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quoting from the GNG, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly". Trends on Twitter are directly addressing the topic and articles written about such coverage proves the significance. We are living in a digital and social age where a lot of news is reported in real time on outlets such as Twitter. Many reliable sources no longer write articles, but instead keep their headlines to 140 characters or less. I do agree with you argument about Aaryn and Jenn, however, I believe Zach qualifies under these criteria as well due to the reception he has received in traditional and social media. (Complete side note here, I'm not a crazy Zach fan, he's not even my favorite, I just honestly believe he deserves his own article.) As far as future endeavors go, notable Big Brother tweeter MissCleoBB (highly opinionated, but a good source for facts once weeded through the opinions) did a Google Hangout with Jill Rance yesterday where he stated his high hopes for the future of Zach with CBS and also discussed the Twitter sensation that surrounded Zach and all of the hashtags that were born as a result of the fanbase that was acquired by the HouseGuest. [1] Cazzie09 (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Facepalm. That means IF reliable sources cover the twitter and social media notoriety; you can't use social media DIRECTLY to assert notability. WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... I understand what a reliable source is and there are secondary sources that cover that. Twitter handles were inserted because I didn't want to directly link pictures posted by individuals with the proof of the trending hashtag and expose their personal details in such a public manner, just to show proof. I said in the last post that there are articles written about the coverage and they are almost all completely linked within the article already. If you have a better solution to cite an event that happened on social media than what I have already done by citing a source talking about the event as well as the hashtag associated with the event, I would love to hear your wonderful suggestion. Cazzie09 (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-edit- In addition, if you take a look at the pages for similar people, such as Aaryn Gries or Andy Herren, their sources are from the same, or similar, websites and occasionally lacking in depth and thus completion. As you stated, Aaryn has a page for racism accusations, which made traditional and social media buzz. Zach deserves a page for his traditional and social media buzz that was created over his crazy antics as well. And finally, now that I've had time to work on the article, I believe it is properly sourced as it includes primary and secondary sources in all possible cases. I believe the article was nominated for deletion entirely prematurely, 34 minutes after creation to be exact, as the article was still undergoing initial edits as well as content and source additions at that time. I do not suggest that this article is complete, as many on Wikipedia never are, however it discusses the impacts Zach had on the game and social media during his time on Big Brother 16 with sufficient sources. Cazzie09 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Even if there's transient notability, WP:NTEMP applies; this is "15 minutes of fame" notability. There are three news hits, all on fan sites. John Nagle (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: per WP:NTEMP as pointed out by John Nagle; Warhol was right about the 15 minutes of fame. Quis separabit? 13:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - There are too many articles that need to be deleted of people with "15 minutes of fame." This is one of them. While a new account creating a new article is NOT a factor to consider, the fact that this guy is not known for anything other than his 15 minutes does NOT qualify him under any circumstances, including WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the article fails WP:N.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richa Tiwari[edit]

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

This article was created by a sock puppet. I've blocked the sock. It has been edited by IPs, most of whom, if not all, are the same person as the sock account. Almost nothing in the article is true, and with the exception of the Facebook reference, none of the sources supports the material. Then, of course, there are the citation needed tags, which obviously don't belong in a "new" article (it has been recreated many times in the past). I have semi-protected the page because of the IP socks.

I have left in the garbage so editors can see it. I've resisted deleting the article because of my involvement and on the off chance that the person satisfies our notability guidelines.

The two sources. The first does not mention the subject's name. The second is a Wikipedia clone of another article, and the parenthetical about the subject is NOT even in the article anymore. Don't know when and if it was.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. CutestPenguin ^discuss 14:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete if indeed created by a blocked user. Otherwise delete per nominator's rationale. Quis separabit? 18:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it had been created by a known sock at the time of creation, I would have speedy deleted it myself. WP:CSD#G5 doesn't apply in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per Bbb23 and CutestPenguin. Searched using English language newspapers in India, plus several SERPs, plus browsed the references, not much to indicate notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This article is an obvious DELETE. Fails WP:RS WP:V WP:GNG. It probably should have been Speedy Deleted as db-spam or db-A7. --Jersey92 (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't Delete I think it shouldn't be deleted being a huge fan of Kalakarz I know Richa Tiwari. I am not allowed to edit it as it is semi-protected but I've requested wiki to let me edit it .I've some good information and references between the user is blocked and had used many IPs so it is his fault not of richa tiwari why is the article even considered for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamlolloliam (talk • contribs) 19:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? Please provide links here on this page, but you might wish to read this first.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spice World (film). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Spice Bus[edit]

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

Spicecruft or buscruft, I simply do not believe this is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...It probably merits a line and a half in the article on the film.TheLongTone (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing on the Daily Mail site: "Spice Bus" site:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/. One drive-by mention in The Independent: "Spice Bus" site:http://www.independent.co.uk. I enjoyed this, the only mention of the bus in Google newspapers. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KauffnerReply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Spice World (film) - I admit it does sound interesting but it doesn't warrant its own article as of now. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. As creator of this page, I believe it is a valid entry and of interest for two reasons. There are a great many Spice Girls (one of the world's most popular groups) and Spice World fans who are interested in the fate of this important part of the movie, which has escaped the scrap yard fate of most of the buses of its era on numerous occasions, to now be long-term preserved. It is also of interest to the many bus enthusiasts in the UK, who are interested in any historical bus, let alone one that has been used in a movie. There are pages on the internet devoted to Bristol VR and other makes of buses. I hope that the community agrees that the references included on the page bear this out. Razzladazzla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzladazzla (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 August 2014‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge the sourced information to the film article. I see a slew of links in the "references" section, but hardly any appear to meet WP:RS and stand-alone notability is not established. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Merge as above. Apologies to Razzladazzla, but merely existing and being THE bus used by The Spice Girls is not a notability. If the bus is itself covered in multiple secondary sources ( Perhaps through book sources? ), THAT can be notability. Lacking notability for a separate article, a merge places the information where it makes sense for it be read. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ansh666 20:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gnarwolves[edit]

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

Was A7'ed a year a go, not much better except to announce an album that hasn't come out. Sources fail to establish notability due to not being true WP:RS material. Kerrang! is probably the strongest source, which is pretty weak for establishing notability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete and not because the article has me on the fence. Its just that the band gets a number of hits on Google news, but since none of the coverage seems to come from reliable/notable sources, I fail to see how it meets any of the points of WP:BAND. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Gnarwolves are a very well known band in the UK alternative scene and have been featured in national publications such as Rock Sound, Kerrang and have been featured several times on BBC Radio 1 as well as playing on the main stage of Reading and Leeds Festivals Golf_is_super_cool

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The Radio 1 session, international touring, plus playing at some pretty major festivals such as Reading & Leeds, probably makes them notable enough. There is coverage around, which isn't earth-shattering in its depth, but sufficient for sourcing, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Michig (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep per Michig's findings, which appear to be just enough to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 18:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - They qualify under WP:BAND as they have released a few EP's and the reference that Michig would support the content. I don't plan on paying to hear them anytime soon, but they would still meet notability guidelines in my opinion.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Oshwah's rationale for deletion seems to have been largely obviated by the addition of independent sources to the article. Deor (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liberties Press[edit]

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

Advertising, fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 22:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. All of the sources listed are from the official website and are not independent. Lacks notability under the guideline. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I am finding some coverage in RS, but so far it's slow going. There are a massive, massive amount of reviews and comments about the books they publish, but not really that much coverage for the publisher itself. This is kind of one of those weird times where WP:NOTINHERITED can get pretty frustrating because the books are mostly notable and Liberties Press is the first publisher of the work (as opposed to other publishers that just reprint previously published work almost solely), but this still falls under "notability is not inherited" for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very weak keep or userfy to User:Tokyogirl79/Liberties Press. I'm kind of undecided about this for the most part, but I'm defaulting to a weak keep on this one. There is a ton of coverage for the books LP has put out, but not really that much for the specific publisher. I did find quite a bit for an injunction filed against the company, but what is really pushing it to a weak keep for me is that the publisher has received coverage from the Irish Times from 2003 and as recent as 2014. I won't argue heavily if the deletion discussion ends with this getting deleted, though. If it is deleted, I volunteer to userfy the page myself and I'll keep an eye out for more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep but it needs improving (bricks and mortar offices!!)PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep. Publishing a notable book automatically makes the publisher notable. Critical appraisal of a book is critical appraisal of the people responsible for it. The two things cannot be separated. NOTINHERITED, which is only an essay, has no application in this case. It only works in the other direction. James500 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another way of putting this is that deleting the publisher of a large number of notable books would blow a massive hole in the encyclopedia, in terms of depriving those articles of context. James500 (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Respectfully, some of the reasons stated above are just plain wrong. Right now, the citations are pretty poor but cite significant articles on them in the two Irish papers of record, the Irish Times and the Irish Independent, which should make them pass WP:GNG almost by default. Further, the Melanie Verwoerd publishing decision attracted a great deal of radio and TV attention in Ireland that hasn't yet been reflected in the citations. Looking over their list of published books, it includes a surprising number of Ireland's best known authors. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing is notable by default and even the article about the Verwoers-saga is hardly more than a passing mention as the article is about the book, not the publisher. The Banner talk 09:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable, in-depth sources to establish notability WP:GNG and I also noticed over one hundred published reviews of their books in a HighBeam search. I am One of Many (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Nom stated they would withdraw "tomorrow", around 20 hours ago; feel free to reopen if this was a bit early. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 20:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MOPS International[edit]

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

Article lacks sources other than to organization website. No secondary sources indicate notability. Google search reveals websites for local branches of MOPS, but not much more. Fails WP:GNG & WP:CLUB as multiple, third party sources do not indicate importance. – S. Rich (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by OP – a secondary source has been added to the article. Basically it is the repeat of a press announcement by MOPS about changes in management. Does not, IMO, provide indication of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I've never heard of MOPS before, but I did find a number of sources in my HighBeam search of which I added several sources. There are more I could add. The first source I added above stated that the article was put together by the staff of the magazine (at the bottom of the article). I am One of Many (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment by OP – I see the additional sources. With your efforts in mind and appreciated, I shall withdraw this nomination. Not at the moment though. I'm engaged on another gnomish project at present. Probably tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cover your ass[edit]

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

Nothing more than a (poor) dictionary definition, along with some examples of use. There's nothing particularly encyclopedic here, nor do I think it's likely that anything can be written encyclopedically about this common phrase. Readers wishing to know about the meaning and background behind the term can consult Wiktionary. Powers ^T 20:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Per the WP:DICTIONARY guidelines. Not an encyclopedic term. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, although I agree previous version of article was substandard, but the current version (Aug 26th 2014) is hopefully upgraded as per WP:HEYMANN. Reasons the term is encyclopedic is that it has been covered by language expert William Safire in several columns here and here, plus merits an entry in his Safire's Political Dictionary here. Plus it and its variants (cover your butt, C.Y.A., etc) has been used in different contexts such as by Minnesota health authorities, that we can treat it as an encyclopedic topic, despite its rather vulgar origin. It is an important term in politics and bureaucracy, and in the interaction between business and government, and has a history which is changing, with different nuances and usages, making it grist for Wikipedia, not just a simple dictionary definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While several references were added, I don't believe they rise to the level of "significant" as our general notability guidelines require. The Safire articles mention the term only in passing; it is not the primary subject of those articles. His Political Dictionary is, obviously, a dictionary and not an encyclopedia; mere coverage in a dictionary is not an indication of encyclopedic notability. I also hasten to point out that it is not just "simple dictionary definition"s that we reject as being more appropriate for Wiktionary. Complex dictionary definitions -- indeed, entire dictionary entries -- may be quite lengthy and include extensive lexical and semantic data, but they are still inherently dictionary entries, not encyclopedic ones. Powers ^T 18:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Safire work on cover your ass and related terms was not mere mentions, but he discussed it prominently, particularly in regard to politics, with Senators using the term, its history, that part of it was a synecdoche, etc. Safire did not discuss all terms in his columns, but only ones he thought were significant and notable. He was well-respected for his column on language, and his column appeared regularly in a top American newspaper, the New York Times. When Safire discussed a term, he was saying, in effect, that he thought educated people (who care about writing, language, etc) should study this term, that there was variation in usage, change over time, worthy of being written about in a top national news source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. It is not at all obvious that Safire's Political Dictionary is not an encyclopedia. In my view, a dedicated article in an encyclopedia or similarly organised work of reference is significant coverage. I think this passes that test. James500 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The political dictionary is entirely about words. That's just about the most concise definition of a dictionary possible. Powers ^T 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Colloquilisms are useful in everyday language and having a detailed description of these terms can be especially helpful for non-native English speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelliess (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, but that is what dictionaries are for. Powers ^T 00:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but the current Wikipedia version, which describes the activity of CYA with examples in context, is substantively richer than any dictionary definition. It's encyclopedic, what people need.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or Not Keep, Encyclopedic or Not Yet Encyclopedic. Let us be perfectly clear that what we are talking about with CYA is not a word, not merely a colloquialism and its dictionary definition, but one of the deepest and most recondite operating principles of modern society. Almost every issue in our society that becomes an 'issue' from the level of the living room, to the classroom, to the board room, to the Oval Office, to the UN General Assembly is deeply governed by this operational principle. There may not be enough scholarly evidence currently to generate a high quality encyclopedia article, but I would be loath to delete the article without a more thorough search of the literature. There may be other articles on the Wiki or branches of science that are directly relevant to the subject that have yet to be tied into this article.Atani (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, are you saying keep or delete?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The current version (20:48, 26 August 2014‎) goes beyond the dictionary usage and includes the social significance of the term, which is in line with WP:WORDISSUBJECT. BMIComp 21:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Nice improvement of this article, which goes beyond a dictionary definition now.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jenks24 (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Luca Moreira (athlete)[edit]

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

This article was speedy deleted on July 27th as Luca Moreira on notability grounds. This version is not that different and clearly does not meet WP:MMANOT. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because he is also a non-notable MMA WP:MMANOT fighter who's only wikilink is to the main subject of this AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete both Neither fighter has any top tier MMA fights to show they meet WP:NMMA. Sherdog doesn't list any fights at all for Luca, plus the article's focus is on trainer's accomplishments and notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, this article is related to a biography without encyclopedic relief created in Wiki-pt. The author of the article in Portuguese was blocked by use of multiple accounts. Sorry my bad english. GRS73 (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizabeth Humphries[edit]

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

subject does not appear to meet wikipedia guidelines re notability Meg from Toronto (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete have to agree. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Obvious failure of WP:BIO and WP:NPF. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I also did a HighBeam search, which usually turns up something if there is a hint of notability, but it turned up nothing.I am One of Many (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Darlene Vibares[edit]

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

Did she win? No. Did she chart s single or album? No. Is she underage? Yes. Enough independent sources? No. So, not notable. The Banner talk 20:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Fails pretty much all of the guidelines under WP:MUSIC. No notable awards, contributions, or cultural impact. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}
Delete as per the above, WP:TOOSOON may be applicable as well.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 15:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carl Freer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure attack page. This was closed 6 months ago prior to being able to place a rebuttal on comments left by editor who seems to want to add information that is not neutral to the subject of the article. Requested to have it sent back to AfD and was advised to wait 6 months. Here we are again, and this is still an attack page. If this guy is known for anything, what is it? If it is a criminal, then he does not meet the criteria for being a criminal (WP:CRIME). JakenBox (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Not an attack page, as all of the negativity is well-sourced, and even if you think he doesn't fall under the exception in WP:CRIME, he's notable per WP:GNG. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - All negativity is well-sourced, but they are not all from reliable sources. In addition, the article is written from a non-neutral point of view, using terms like "raided" which is not even used in the article used to source the comment. This is why it falls under definition of an attack page. I also do not see how having an article in the L.A. Times meets the definition of WP:GNG. If that were the case, then there are several thousand articles that we could write on Wikipedia.--JakenBox (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- If NPOV is the problem, then fix it. Deletion isn't cleanup. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, notable and not defamatory. Six months after the last AfD JakenBox still has not named a single defamatory statement. Huon (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I did not know I was required to prove that anything was defamatory. An attack page is one that "exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject." In fact, one thing about this article that has been removed but keeps coming back is about his company and it being the "worse selling handheld console in history." What about one its games being the forerunner to guitar hero [8]? Nothing is mentioned in the article about that. So, my point is basically proven that this page is set up as an attack page. It uses everything negative that can be found about this person to bunch together and make him look like a notorious criminal. If anything, he is a failed businessperson whose article should be merged into one of the company articles, especially since 90% of his personal page is about the company and NOT him. --JakenBox (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment From your external link: "This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff." So, an unsourced opinion piece by a single author on a community board. That would not be allowed on this article anyway. There is a reason why the article currently has links to long-form articles in well-known secondary sources instead. The reason I bring this up is to explain why more than one person on this page feels you have exhausted WP:AGF on these deletion attempts. When you could not succeed in deleting the page or appealing the decision against you, you began inserting questionable sources with promotional language into this article. The page was protected as a result. Further attempts suggest frivolity on your part. Universaladdress (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I don't believe this to be an attack page. This person does not fall under WP:BLP1E, because of his legal issues (which are well-sourced) The person meets WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Looks like an attack page. He is notable only for two things: Gizmondo and his legal issues. His relationship with Gizmondo is covered extensively in Gizmondo. The only thing that necessitates this article is his criminal past, but the article does not meet WP:CRIME. WP:GNG is also suspect, considering he's only really notable for Gizmondo and, again, that information is covered in Gizmondo. No one else would get a page for being a passenger in a Ferrari crash (per the LA Times) or being involved in criminal activities as a youth. It just doesn't qualify for Wikipedia. gargleafg (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, per Gargleafg. The bulk of the article is not biographical, but simply lists his encounters with the law. As such, a redirect to one of the other pages mentioned here or on the previous nominations would seem pertinent. His name is only associated with said acts, and he remains non-notable generally speaking (in my opinion he thus remains a low-profile individual). A severely skewed biographical article that only discusses a person's business and criminal activities is detrimental to the encyclopaedia's role, when all of that can easily be elaborated in relevant sections of the articles about those events. CesareAngelotti (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The above user joined Wikipedia less than a month ago and since then the user's contributions have been solely comments on deletion discussions, and creation of a couple stub pages. Again, I need to point out that the article under discussion has a history of promotional edits friendly to its topic, frivolous NPOV templates and frivolous delete nominations and required confirmed edits as a result. Universaladdress (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Mirroring previous comments, I'd say he's got a fringe claim to notability. 3rd AfD and still no consensus. Here are my efforts towards ending this discussion once and for all. A simple google search churns out sources referring to his criminal activity; even his first image comes from a Swedish article comparing him to Leonardo DiCaprio's character in Catch Me If You Can. Following that motif, the Wikipedia article's almost entirely dedicated to his dodgy activities. I'm not saying these shouldn't be discussed in a biography from a neutral perspective, but when the bulk of a BLP yields constant negative coverage (there's media sensationalism to blame, of course), then it needs to be judged from the person's perspective. This obviously refers to a fringe personality, in other words: it wouldn't be the case if the person was already notable and the criminal allegations were simply a small fraction of the Wikipedia article. As such, I'll cite WP:NOT, WP:PERP and WP:ATP and call for a deletion, if only to bring closure to this 3rd nomination. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note – While I have not seen any comments from at least one user who is adamant about keeping this attack page going, I am going to assume that he/she will come at the last minute with a delete vote in an attempt to tilt the scales without leaving enough time for an ample counter-response. As a closing thought, I would like to point out that although this is the article’s 3rd nomination, the 1st was a no consensus. The 2nd was a keep which included a vote from a now non-existent user who voted that “I came here to look this guy up.” While this 3rd nomination may seem like I am disrupting Wikipedia, I am simply trying to point out that this article is detrimental to the overall goal of Wikipedia. It does NOT meet WP:GNG. If it did, then anyone who commits a crime and ends up with an article in the L.A. Times should be included in Wikipedia. This person may have been someone back in the day, but they are no longer and there are not enough reliable sources to show what his “claim to fame” (notability) is. It definitely is not WP:CRIME and I still do not see how having your name in the L.A. Times meets general notability guidelines. So, sorry to ramble on, just trying to make a case for why the article needs to be deleted as opposed to being used by those who want to take a dispute about things that happened outside of Wikipedia and try to make a case of it on Wikipedia. After all, outside of the 5 or 6 people who voted on this AfD, I am not sure there are enough people who know or remember this guy to even count on one hand. --JakenBox (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This person may have been someone back in the day, but they are no longer That goes completely against how notability works. Once something becomes notable, it's notable forever. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, that is not exactly true as you are parsing the statement. People may gain attention for something they did (such as riding in an expensive car that was wrecked) but this does not mean that they are notable. He may have been front page news as that was the story of the day and that is what people at the L.A. Times thought was the most notable news for the day, but this does NOT make him notable under Wikipedia WP:GNG. So while he may have been "someone" for one event (his 10 seconds of fame in the L.A. Times), this does not mean that he meets WP:GNG.--JakenBox (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every few months you attempt to get this page deleted. Why? What is the point? I agree with Jackmcbarn; it is impossible to assume good faith from you at this point. Universaladdress (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Attack page or not, this would not meet WP:GNG. An example would be the article for Fifth Harmony. Despite being mentioned in WP:RS, the article was redirected multiple times until the band actually released a single [9] [10]. Despite being mentioned (and featured) in multiple reliable sources, the band simply did not meet general notability guidelines and they had a hundred times the references that this guy has. Looks like he wrecked a car and ran a company into the ground. If that were notable, then we need to rewrite notability guidelines to include criteria for "Failed CEOs." Even if all the sources were reliable, they are mainly about the company and I would agree with those above who state that we can easily redirect this into the company article. This is another 15 minutes of fame article that Wikipedia doesn't need.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Given the history of constant attempts to get this page deleted, the deletes appealed, ad nauseam, I don't feel at all reluctant to point out that the above editor has a long history of suspect promotional edits for various articles on private individuals and companies. This article has been protected for good reason. Universaladdress (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Not sure why you decided to comment about my editing, but I have been here long enough to know that you don't accuse someone of something because you disagree with their point of view. As such, you need to assume a little good faith. There is nothing promotional with my edits as I stick mainly with two types of articles (tech and music) and like to chime in at AfD from time to time. From YOUR edit history, it appears that you are a hit and run editor who makes very few edits. Nothing wrong with that, and you won't see me calling you "suspect" for doing such. So, why attack someone for disagreeing with your point of view? Seems to be quite a bit of that on the talk page for this article as well (from all editors on the talk page including the nominator). So, maybe everyone can stick to the AfD and give their reasons to keep or delete; and, if you feel my edits (mainly new articles) are promotional, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Other than that, WP:AGF.--CNMall41 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I offer to anyone who doubts what I'm suggesting here the article Nutanix, created completely by the above user. I don't want to derail this further into a discussion of the editors chiming in here, but I find language such as "provides the highest performance" suggestive of what is going on here. Universaladdress (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Sorry, you have already derailed the conversation. Since you don't see to like to assume good faith, let's look at this do you don't have an "doubt." Actually, you're an idiot as you made an accusation without doing your homework. Here is the article that I created on Nutanix and the content that I put in the article [11]. Everything else within that article was done from different users so maybe you can go to their talk pages and make accusations as well. You may also notice in the "see also" section that I created an article on one of its main competitors --SimpliVity. So, do your homework before you start to make accusations about anything. "created completely by the above user" is far from the truth. Finally, maybe you can vent some of your frustration into making Wikipedia a better place as opposed to attacking people your don't even know. And stop "suggesting." State what's on your mind as opposed to trying to get others to see something that simply isn't there. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional - I'm getting ready to start an article on the company LibraTax if you would like to comment about that one too. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think I can assume from the personal attacks such as "idiot" that direct conversation with you will no longer be fruitful. In any case I think this discussion is likely to close soon with the same result as before. Universaladdress (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Has anyone checked the history on this? We've been over this ground before. Every few months someone tries to get this page deleted, the notability under WP:CRIME is clear from the well-sourced popular press articles in the references, and then the page is subject to a series of malicious edits attempting to extract sources from the article and insert biased representations. At one point the delete was appealed and it was still kept. Please, let's not do this all over again. The page has been so well-sourced at this point that the text in that section rivals the article, which is sparing and descriptive. Please just let it be now that it's unobtrusive and accurate. Universaladdress (talk)
Keep. Color me unimpressed with the massive gravitation that Wikipedia has toward "controversy" sections in BLP articles, this isn't really one of those, and the subject has more than enough coverage to suggest notability. Silverfish8088 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Natg 19 (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2014 Belgian Super Cup[edit]

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

Don't know whether a match is eligible for wikipedia page or not. Didn't find much on Wikipedia:Notability (sports) so raising the issue here. Mr RD 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as found out notability for the game as stipulated by Natg 19. Thanks Mr RD 14:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I found a notability guideline for single games at WP:SPORTSEVENT, and this match seems to be between 2 champions (the champion of the Belgian Pro League and the champion of the Belgian Cup). Natg 19 (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - It is the Belgian equivalent of the FA Community Shield in England (and Wales), it is a notable competition of a Fully Professional League. IJA (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Clearly notable Belgian equivalent of the Spanish Super Cup . It is the match between the winner of the Belgian Pro League and the winner of the Belgian Cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - notable; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - notable; same as above. Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 20:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - a cup competition of national importance. Fenix down (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Larissa Pacheco[edit]

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

Female MMA fighter with no top tier fights so she fails WP:NMMA. Winning the title of an organization that isn't even considered second tier for women does not show notability. Since she just signed with the UFC she may eventually meet NMMA but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL and it will be awhile before she has 3 top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No top tier fights - just signing with the UFC is not nearly enough. If she had at least one top tier win under her belt I would suggest letting it remain but it is just too far in the future to guarantee anything.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete She fails WP:NMMA since she has no top tier fights. I would say the article was created WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Papanasam (film)[edit]

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

Article about a movie to be released in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. NickCT (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 August 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, the film has begun principal photography and has been featured extensively in news related to Indian cinema and Tamil Nadu. Editor 2050 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Keep - As per ~~WP:42~~ WP:GNG. CutestPenguin ^discuss 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Cutest Penguin: - Wikipedia:Don't_cite_WP42_at_AfD NickCT (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NickCT: I was not aware of that, well I have made the correction. Thanks for letting me know! CutestPenguin ^discuss 02:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cutest Penguin: A ~~strikethrough~~ of a comment is preferred over a complete removal. HERE'S the redacted comment. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Papanasam Jeethu Joseph Wide Angle Creations Kamal Haasan Gautami

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

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

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

Keep per production of this filming-and-currently-unreleased film meeting notability guidelines. To NickCT with respects, take a look at WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nom Withdraws - Per Schmidt, . I was unaware of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Policy seems to clearly support keep. NickCT (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. The required caveats there are 1) the topic must be receiving coverage to meet WP:GNG, and 2) filming must be confirmed. Best wishes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apex effect[edit]

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

The supposed effect sees essentially no mention outside of a small sliver of the alternative medicine communities. There is not really any salvageable material here for a merge. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Thought Field Therapy. The term appears to have been coined by Roger Callahan, but that link redirects to TFT. It is reiterated by enough alternative-type practitioners that I think it should be redirected as a plausible search term rather than deleted. Disclosure: I am responding due to a notification posted at WP:FTN. -Location (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
redirect is a good option for this non notable jargon within a fringe theory. There are no suitable MEDRES sources to establish notability for a stand alone article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete Available RS are not sufficient to make this a standalone article. DocumentError (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Zero mention in reliable independent secondary sources. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - As per Dominus Vobisdu's argument. AlanS^talk 11:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Concept has no traction anywhere except one particular tiny fraction of the alt med community. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 there are a few outstanding redirect !votes despite a consensus for keep, I'd recommend that any discussion of possible redirection proceed to the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creature of Havoc[edit]

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

Not all books are notable, even if by notable authors, and this appears to be one of them. There's one reference here one might call reliable, but it does no more than mention the book briefly; I cannot find other valid sources--reviews, discussions, etc.--in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a project underway to expand the more significant gamebook pages and to add references. The project is ongoing and has not yet reached Creature of Havoc. Deleting the page now seems unconstructive. Deagol2 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if no references can be found it can't be helped. (Plus, it can always be recreated, written properly with the help of references.) If I may make a suggestion: Steve Jackson (UK game designer) does not appear to have a single reliable source, and any work should probably start there. Whether Appelcline's Designers & Dragons is reliable in the first place is hard to assess. It's published by Evil Hat Productions, but that company itself publishes role-playing games and is therefore probably not a reliable independent source. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait, what? Because it's published by a completely different outfit in the same industry you think that establishes lack of independence? Sure Designers & Dragons isn't independent of games produced by Evil Hat (actually by Mongoose Publishing in the case of the version normally used for sources, Evil Hat is producing the second edition) but you're claiming that merely being in the same industry means they aren't independent. So it is impossible for any source published in a book to be independent with respect to another book because publishing is the same industry? Neonchameleon (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect per WP:BKCRIT with only a single source mentioning it in passing; I had a look earlier and couldn't find any better ones. That Jackson considers the book "quite difficult" can be mentioned in context in the main Fighting Fantasy article. --McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Fighting Fantasy. I think a redirect (or maybe even move to draft space) would probably be best, especially if an organized attempt to source these topics is underway. Browsing through the category, they really do need help in that regard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That's fine by me, Pirate. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect. I'm sure this could be sourced but until the refs appear it is best to redirect and leave the content intact in the history. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Fighting Fantasy, in case enough sources can eventually be found to recreate it. Miniapolis 22:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Redirect to List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks~~ or main series page. I think that we should leave the history behind because I am finding it mentioned quite frequently ([12], [13]) and I keep getting the impression that there's more coverage out there that hasn't made it on to the Internet. It's fairly frustrating, especially since it just seems so freaking cool, but we just don't have the coverage. I do agree with the idea of userfying a copy of the page, especially if there's a concentrated effort to improve the articles, as there is a chance that more coverage could be found. At the very least I'd certainly endorse the idea of any FF pages getting transferred to a fan Wikia on the series, if there is a serious chance of deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm changing my argument to keep, based on the rationales below. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Not all books are notable, even if by notable authors, and this appears to be one of them - apparently consensus has changed on that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - It seems fairly obvious where this discussion is heading. Some additional sources have been added to the article since the AFD was raised but judging from the comments above these are not deemed sufficient. You are the Hero - A History of Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks by Jonathan Green is due to be published early in September, so it may be that it will contain enough reference-able information to justify the article being recovered. Deagol2 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- You mean this here? If it does cover Creature of Havoc, and you can get a copy when it comes out, then if this article is in draft space you can work on it, take it to WP:DRV and it may be back in article space in just a few weeks. BOZ (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I'm a little confused by your reply, the consensus alluded to is redirect and leave history - so userfy and DRV is unlikely to be needed (but of course the article would be back soon if it is deleted). Szzuk (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: it may have only had one reference when it was nominated, but it has enough now. Also if we know that a new book about FF is due to be published next month then it would be premature to delete or redirect it now. Richard75 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Looking at those sources, four only seem to be the "trivial mention" that WP:GNG defines as insufficient: Heroic Worlds: A History and Guide to Role-Playing Games only offers a 48-word plot summary and a one-sentence "One of the more interesting later entries in the series." capsule review, sf-encyclopedia.com gives it half a sentence, eurogamer.net simply namechecks it alongside four other books and vice.com has one of the writers saying "The ones that were more popular were the most difficult ones. [...] Creature of Havoc is quite difficult too." The SciFi Now top ten listing stretches to a few sentences, but it seems to be a WP:NEWSBLOG written by a non-professional writer rather than a reliable published source. Even giving SciFi Now the benefit of the doubt, these don't add up to the "significant coverage in [multiple] reliable sources" required by WP:GNG. --McGeddon (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - The SciFiNow reference is to the blog for the pro-print-magazine of the same name. The blog author is the editor of the magazine, not a non-professional, so meets the requirements laid down in WP:NEWSBLOG. I feel that to write if off as merely a few sentences is a little disingenuous. Deagol2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Oh, okay, if he's the editor. It is only five sentences, though. And it would still only give us a single non-trivial source. --McGeddon (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - There is also You Are The Hero by Jonathan Green - a 100,000 word book on Fighting Fantasy. It is not cited yet, but immediate citation is not required by WP:NOTABILITY. The guideline states that its existence is sufficient as long as the article is updated in due course. "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." Deagol2 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per agreement with reasons stated by Richard75, but I will add that it would be preferable to draftify rather than redirect. BOZ (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The referencing in the article has improved significantly since this discussion was started and there is scope for further improvement the very near future with the publication of the new book next week. Deagol2 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep (possibly with no prejudice against relisting in a couple of months) - it has a minimum of one source under wp:N (SciFiNow), with You Are The Hero as a second almost presumed. Given it makes it into top 10 lists, at the moment it is very likely that it is going to cover it - immediate citation is not necessary. And it looks as if no one has a stack of old White Dwarves or the like which used to frequently reviewed such books. I also note that it was not only reprinted twice in separate series, but its initial printing it was number 24 and it shot up to number 4 in the reprints due to popular demand. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colinear Ratio[edit]

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

Article content doesn't make any sense, despite seemingly logical at first glance and having a few citations. Edit history is rather suspicious as well, despite multiple edits from multiple authors. EdSaperia (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Article is incoherent, sources don't match the content, and DDG queries for "(haxl|facebook) (colinear|collinear) ratio" turn up nothing. The ECCV and computer vision textbook references are a red herring, AFAICT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete—I did my own google scholar checks without the "facebook" term and concur; regardless of the state of the article, the topic is not notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Article reads like a sales-pitch, a glossy framework with no content. Talk about Lagrangian points and complex mathematical formulas is flim-flam even in the context of mathematical modeling. References are not to the statements made but rather to something related to something in the statement, such as the reference to Lagrangian points being a biography of Lagrange and not about how this physical concept is being modeled in the data analysis realm. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Obvious hoax. Only the first reference ostensibly mentions the presumptive topic of the article (here). But this clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. As one of the authors of this Article, I take offense to your comments. How is this a sales pitch? We are trying to describe how the Colinear Ratio determines performance by eliminating the fog of time. Stationary measurement is exactly why the Lagrangian points are referenced. True that we didn't layout the actual formula, because we are not given access to the formula. I will be more than happy to try and edit the article to be easier to understand, but for you all to make statements like "Obvious hoax"...is offensive. We may be new to Wikipedia, but we are attempting to share some knowledge about a subject matter that many people find interesting and valuable for their work. User:Richard95355 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.192.35.190 (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By eliminating the "fog of time"? That also seems like a term that was invented just for the purpose of this hoax. The cited reference for "fog of time" does not even mention this concept. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Likely hoax. NickCT (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I declined this AFC as it did not make any sense. as you can see in the history. The current article is not much different. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. Seems like hoax. SmileBlueJay97 talk 13:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It does need improving quite alot but sources have been found. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ezhikkara[edit]

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

This article does not have any references so the info cannot be verified and the notability of the village is questionable. Wikipuser777 (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep just because it doesn't have any sources doesn't mean it should be deleted. In fact, articles about places (except places such as individual roads, bridges, streams, etc.) are rarely if ever deleted. A Google search shows that it obviously exists - instead of nominating it for deletion, you should have fixed it up yourself. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@G S Palmer: Read the 1st line of the article, it says Ezhikkara is a panchayat in Paravur Taluk where a panchayat is political system in India and not a place. CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cutest Penguin: yes, and then throughout the rest of the article it refers to it as a village. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)!Reply[reply]

Keep. It has a Bank of India branch,[14] a Government Higher Secondary School,[15] a post office,[16] a community health centre[17] and at least one church.[18] Why, it's practically a bustling metropolis. The Chief Electoral Officer, Kerala, recognizes the place.[19] By longstanding consensus, officially recognized and inhabited places are notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and re-write. CutestPenguin ^discuss 17:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It's listed in the Census of India which is enough for WP:GEOLAND. Se also Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories: In 36 Volumes. Kerala, Volume 14. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 decision, via AfD consensus, that The Night Runners are a nonnotable band makes this article's satisfying of WP:MUSBIO rather unlikely; and since the few participants here (other than the sockpuppet) are advocating deletion, the consensus is clear. Deor (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard Mason (singer)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. The main claim of significance is being a member of a band whose article is already being discussed (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Night Runners), the only separate claim is having co-written a song that was offered to One Direction but no evidence that they recorded it. January (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you should read A7 in the speedy deletion section as it states: It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied and any claim against the page would be inadmissible. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion. Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7. --Iampixiedust (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning just because you may not be familiar with the show "X Factor USA" , Richard Mason, or "The Night Runners" for that matter, does not grant you the right to request deletion of this page when substantial evidence and references have been cited to discredit your accusation of Richard Mason page being deleted. --Iampixiedust (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page should not be deleted because all references have been already previously approved. All references have been well credited from reliable sources such as IMDB, the The X Factor (U.S. season 1) Wikipedia page, being a member of pop band The Night Runners, as well as writing the viral hit song "With You" where Richard Mason received several online publication and success as a public figure. No content on this page violates any copyrights. All content is verifiable, and all terms and conditions are met. I kindly ask that you do not delete this page.--Iampixiedust (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a WP:CSD#A7 (speedy deletion) nomination, this is WP:Articles for deletion which is a separate process. IMDb and other Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources (see WP:RS/IMDB and WP:CIRCULAR). Only two of the references appear to be independent and neither of these address the subject in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. January (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a previous Wikipedia Page has been approved by multiple Admins then it clearly is a reliable source. IMDB is a major source. Also note that the Richard Mason (singer) page has sufficient depth as it states so in WP:SIGCOV: --Iampixiedust (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.--Iampixiedust (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.--Iampixiedust (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So clearly, my main "Reliable" needs no verifiable evaluation given that this page was already approved by a previous Admin. --Iampixiedust (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that the band or Mason is ultimately notable enough for their own articles. Night Runners did perform on X-Factor, but in the very early group rounds where dozens of groups/people are eliminated. In other words, they were eliminated in a part of the show where we would typically not list contestants because there are so very many of them. Being on a TV show does not give automatic notability and this is a good example of how notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by being involved with a notable show. The band did get some coverage (CNN Latino, a local Miami Fox station) but not nearly enough to where they'd warrant an article on Wikipedia. As far as the sourcing goes, most of it is either WP:PRIMARY (meaning released by the band or someone directly involved with them) or WP:TRIVIAL (meaning it can be used to back up minor details but not major ones). Of the other sources, one is a press release (meaning it's a primary source regardless of where it's posted) and the other is a blog-type source that wouldn't be usable for notability either. I see where he submitted a song for 1D to potentially sing, but the band has not performed the song and it got no farther than it ultimately being something that he posted to YouTube. There are hundreds upon thousands of songs that have been created for notable performers that have never been picked up by the performers and is another good example of how notability is not automatically inherited by a notable person being involved with something- even tenuously. Bluntly put, Mason just isn't notable at this point in time. As far as reliable sources in general go, I won't elaborate too much more- I put a fairly good explanation of sourcing on the AfD for the band but I do want to say that other Wikipedia articles are not usable as a major source of notability- they'd be considered trivial sources because ultimately Wikipedia wants independent and reliable coverage. It's assumed that if someone is notable enough to be mentioned in relation to something that would merit a keep on that basis alone, the topic would have enough coverage to where we wouldn't be relying on another Wikipedia article for notability- especially considering that anyone can edit a Wikipedia page. Other than that, I do want to note that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz declining a speedy deletion for The Night Runners doesn't mean that he endorses the article staying on Wikipedia or endorses the creation of an additional article for Mason. It just meant that TNR had enough of an assertion of notability to where it can't be speedy deleted- it can still be nominated and deleted at AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May i remind you that per Wikipedia Guidelines for speedy deletion you are all contesting deletion based of your opinion on notability: Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7. ---Iampixiedust (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)-Iampixiedust (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning just because you may not be familiar with "X Factor USA", "Richard Mason (singer) or "The Night Runners" for that matter, does not grant you the right to request deletion of this page when substantial evidence and references have been cited to discredit your accusation of The Night Runners page being deleted. --Iampixiedust (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)--Iampixiedust (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do Not Delete: I "repeat", this page was already approved by another ADMIN. If there was an issue with this article to begin with, the ADMIN would have brought it up. Everything was approved and warranted the right to be included into Wikipedia. If more references are wanted, i will provide more in the coming days. However, do not delete this page. --Iampixiedust (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - All articles in Wikipedia are always subject to the deletion process, even those that have been previously nominated and survived. It is part of the building blocks of the site that attempts to keep notable articles alive and kicking in encyclopedic format. From the sockpuppet comment below, I am sure that you are already aware of that, but wanted to point it out just in case. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, this is not a nomination for speedy deletion, the A7 criteria you are quoting do not apply to this process. The issue is whether the subject meets notability guidelines (see WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC) If you have additional sources that would help establish notability please link to them so that others can review. I can't see anything in the history that suggests anyone has previously approved this article (although even if it had that does not mean it cannot be deleted through this process). January (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note to closing admin: User:Iampixiedust was found to be a sockpuppet of User:Mason8252, as well as a slew of other accounts opened by the same editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conditional Redirect? or Delete - Is there such a thing? Outside of the group, this guy really has not done anything to warrant an independent article, including being talked about in depth in multiple WP:RS. If the band page survives (and that would be a big "if" at this point), I would say redirect to that page. If not, then delete is the only other option that I see. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suliko Davitashvili[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Per Sir Sputnik. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

0-8-4[edit]

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

This episode is not notable. The television series is a typical hour-long drama network TV series so obviously notable. The pilot episode is notable; pilots typically are and the episodes broke some records and lots of public attention, fanboy expectations, etc. The second episode is not notable; it has a guest star reprising role from films but that is not a notable occurrence - there was no public hype, noticeable reaction, etc. I could understand and support an argument that the seventeenth episode "Turn, Turn, Turn" was notable and warrants an article (due to positive reviews and public opinion after worsening reviews; changes in main characters dynamics; beginning the HYDRA storyline; and its pop culture impacts on MCU film franchise, particularly Captain America: The Winter Soldier) but not the sophomore, expectedly less viewed, typical second episode. FilmTVComicsNerd (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 August 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Yes, the episode is not notable in and of its self, but it is sourced and can probably be cleaned up some to make it a solid article, instead of starting again from scratch. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Agree with Favre, it won't take much to improve the quality of the page by finding a few references. Also, you contradict yourself by stating that the second episode is not notable and is notable. And by the way, many series have pages for every episode, whether they are significantly notable or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. "Many series have pages for every episode, whether they are significantly notable or not." I consider that a problem. 23 W 00:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think what was meant by that statement, is there are pages for every episode of a series (with notable coverage), but in the grand scheme of each series, each episode is obviously not equally notable. (Such as if a series choses to create articles for only the significant episodes.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I've found other sources that demonstrate its notability:

23 W 00:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I have recently made some major expansions to the page, and I think it justifies its own existence now. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Army Family Advocacy System of Records[edit]

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

I don't believe this program meets GNG and has lasting notability. The link doesn't work either Gbawden (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG. If the Army Family Advocacy Program does not yet warrant an article, how can its government contractor record system be notable enough for an article? EricSerge (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emma Ferrer[edit]

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

As notability is not inherited, Emma Ferrer is not notable. Her only claim to notability is that she is granddaughter of Audrey Hepburn and her appearance in Harper's Bazaar (the other three sources in the article merely discuss the Harper's Bazaar one). We wouldn't consider any other model notable for a single appearance in a magazine, and Ferrer is not different. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note I have been discussion this with the article's creator on their talk page. It has been copied below:

Earlier talk page discussion
(prod boilerplate)...Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing `((proposed deletion/dated))` will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply] I'm not sure. The cover of a major fashion magazine plus more minor stuff? --Jersey92 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply] If she wasn't Hepburn's granddaughter, she wouldn't be on the cover of a fashion magazine, would she? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply] Couldn't the same be said about many people who got opportunities because of relatives? She is on the cover. She has been written about... --Jersey92 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply] Not exactly. George W Bush is notable, but because of his own accomplishments, not his father's. Drew Barrymore would be notable even if her famous family wasn't famous. So, you would need to demonstrate that Ferrer has her own accomplishments, that would make her famous if she wasn't Hepburn's granddaughter, just like Barrymore and Bush. Merely being profiled on a magazine doesn't count - magazine's routinely profile people with no other possible claim to fame. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply] Not just profiled. On the cover. As a model. Also, notability is not from accomplishments but from people's perceptions of the person. Do they speak about the person? Has he/she been written about? To your point: what exactly were Kim Kardashian's accomplishments when she became notable? --Jersey92 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Earlier talk page discussion

(prod boilerplate)...Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure. The cover of a major fashion magazine plus more minor stuff?

--Jersey92 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If she wasn't Hepburn's granddaughter, she wouldn't be on the cover of a fashion magazine, would she? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couldn't the same be said about many people who got opportunities because of relatives? She is on the cover. She has been written about... --Jersey92 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not exactly. George W Bush is notable, but because of his own accomplishments, not his father's. Drew Barrymore would be notable even if her famous family wasn't famous. So, you would need to demonstrate that Ferrer has her own accomplishments, that would make her famous if she wasn't Hepburn's granddaughter, just like Barrymore and Bush. Merely being profiled on a magazine doesn't count - magazine's routinely profile people with no other possible claim to fame. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not just profiled. On the cover. As a model. Also, notability is not from accomplishments but from people's perceptions of the person. Do they speak about the person? Has he/she been written about? To your point: what exactly were Kim Kardashian's accomplishments when she became notable? --Jersey92 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. The sources I've checked invariably refer to her as "Audrey Hepburn's granddaughter". You can WP:INHERIT the wind, but (usually) not a place in Wikipedia. One article notes that this is her modeling debut, so WP:TOOSOON also applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with multiple WP:RS. Her family connection might have helped her, but she has been on the cover of a major fashion magazine as a model. She has been written about in multiple WP:RS -- the articles are about her, not her grandmother. The Harper's article is obviously not about her appearing in Harper's. See references in article and Google search. For a model to be on the cover of a major fashion magazine makes me feel this is beyond WP:TOOSOON. Compare to other models who land major covers - do we consider them not notable if they happen to be related to someone else famous and that helped jump start their careers? --Jersey92 (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly don't consider them notable on the basis of a single cover. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. And she's only been really written about in the one source, Harper's Bazaar. All those other "articles about articles" really don't provide anything new or substantial. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment:That is incorrect. The Daily Mail article is also about her with a lot of information. Give it a few days and you'll see plenty more. Someone who lands the cover of Harper's is going to be written about. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply. So now we've got WP:CRYSTALBALL? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect, Jersey. Magazine routinely profile people who are never heard from again and never make it. A lot of up-and-coming starts profile in fashion and arts magazines never actually make it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many models on the cover of Harper's are not notable and not heard from again? --Jersey92 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. No multiple independent secondary sources analyze the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 03:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If the consensus is to delete, please move to my userspace so that when she gets more WP:RS I can add and move back. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to userspace A good solution, agree wholeheartedly. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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)} 11:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relist Comment, relisting here because I feel the discussion is actually moving towards a consensus rather than the usual AFD case of WP:DUCKSEASON. It could also do with additional input from other uninvolved editors. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough of coverage out there to warrant a stub. Our editing policy indicates that we should retain this for further development. Andrew (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I created the article and commented above. After reading all of the above - I still believe this should be a Keep as passing WP:GNG and WP:PRESERVE, and not WP:TOOSOON. If the consensus is otherwise please move to my userspace. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happy to userfy on request. Jenks24 (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Walker (artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST scope_creep 11:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete or Userfy A local artist with several short blurbs in unreliable sources. The coverage in "thisiscolossal" is just a reprint of [31]. If enough mainstream media coverage can be found, I will change my !vote.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: if there were more sources like the Metro article, I would be inclined to lean toward keep. However, since that seems to have been his only coverage in mainstream media, it's a delete. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This is an up-and-coming artist who has a unique skill and talent. As the author of the page, I've tried to find as much relevant information about him from reliable sources. He has had a major show and is displaying his work at reputable venues. His work and talent are Wiki-worthy and I'm sure that as he continues with his profession there will be much to add to this page. ReachingtheStars (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The above editor has made few edits outside this Afd. The artist is clearly not notable. You have said it yourself, he is an and coming artist. Perhaps after a decade if he's is still on the go. At the moment, I don't believe he is notable. scope_creep talk 20:32 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Reply to ReachingtheStars: See Wikipedia:UPANDCOMING. I will accept userfy as an alternative to delete.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or Userfy - It looks like everyone here, including myself and the author of the page, have "tried" to find sources that meet WP:RS. Unfortunately, they do not exist in any extent to qualify the artist for an article on Wikipedia. If the author of the page feels that more sources are going to become available, I would suggest placing the article into his/her userspace so that it can be recreated in the event new sources do fall within WP:RS. Otherwise, there really isn't another option other than delete. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WxMEdit[edit]

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

Non notable software. Only references are passing mentions and not significant coverage. Google searches not finding very many hits, none of the significant coverage. Its been speedy deleted before and nominated for prod. noq (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete Promo of a not-notable text-editor. After deletion this should be salted, as the owner/PR-department keeps recreating the article. The Banner talk 10:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no major coverage as far as I could tell (there seem to be some results in Chinese, but I can't tell if they are blogs or something serious). --Jakob (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails notability. There is no significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. It seems like he still doesn't understand why the article was deleted. SmileBlueJay97 talk 08:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per SmileBlueJay97 and Fails WP:NSOFT .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BuildProfessional[edit]

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

No evidence that this programming language is notable. Searching finds only misreadings of the word pair "build professional". — Keφr 07:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - unreferenced software stub article of unclear notability; a search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete—Just one passing reference in google scholar. Not finding anything else significant outside of the company website. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not notable and lacks WP:RS .Could not find much other then from the company website.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maratha Rashtra Parishad[edit]

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

Political party appears to be not notable. I have not found in-depth coverage, although I have found its name on lists at here and here. A link at http://freeweb.digiweb.com/pages/maratha/ is broken and does not seem to have been backed up at archive.org. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No credible sources exist. I tried searching in the Marathi language too, but no results. First of the two links quoted by nominator, appears to be just an anti-India hate forum. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This book source Kashmir How Far Can Vajpayee And Musharraf Go? would likely be enough to remove the unreferenced tag, but I'm not suggesting it establishes notability. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Lacks depth of coverage. utcursch | talk 19:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mahagujarat[edit]

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

Unknown political separation movement. Article does not contain any reliable references. (Note: Not to be confused about Mahagujarat Movement) Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia has an article titled Mahagujarat Movement, which is related to this topic, as Vigyani pointed out, although that was a movement in which Gujarat became a separate state within India around 1961, while this topic has the POV, if I grasp it correctly, that Gujarat should become a separate nation and break off from India. If correct, then the article should be titled something like Mahagujarat separatist movement or somesuch; to have the article titled the name of the new proposed country is somewhat original research-ish. If we run the search string -- ("Mahagujarat separatist movement" OR "gujarat separatist movement") (site:indianexpress.com OR site:thehindu.com OR site:timesofindia.com OR site:indiapress.org OR site:hindustantimes.com OR site:samachar.com OR site:ndiatoday.intoday.in OR site:tribuneindia.com OR site:deccanchronicle.com), there are no entries, suggesting this topic is not written about much in Indian news sources. If one searches for (Mahagujarat OR gujarat) ("separatist movement" OR "separate state") (site:indianexpress.com OR site:thehindu.com OR site:timesofindia.com OR site:indiapress.org OR site:hindustantimes.com OR site:samachar.com OR site:ndiatoday.intoday.in OR site:tribuneindia.com OR site:deccanchronicle.com), then there are a few sources, such as this one but which may be somewhat off-topic (a people within the area -- the Kutch? -- agitating for a break from the regular Gujarat state because of grievances), and here, but again are we talking about a separate area within Gujarat, not a separate nation, like in this source, again, with the idea being to have a region within Gujarat break off, to become an additional state within India. So as best I can tell, and while I have not researched this subject thoroughly, but only cursorily, is that the idea of the article is essentially unsubstantiated -- that there is no substantial media coverage of the idea of Gujarat breaking off as a separate nation from India -- so therefore the article should be deleted for lacking WP:RS and failing to meet WP:NOTE but of course I may change my view depending on new information.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Just to avoid saying ditto, I'll note that this independence goal is identified in the article with a political party: Gujarat Swarajya Sangh, which article is currently PRODDED and for which I can find no significant information. If someone did find significant coverage, the articles should probably be merged. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to support verifiability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As per Vigyani and Tomwsulcer. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Please note the Mahagujarat Movement was for the creation of the State of Gujarat and it ended in 1960 after Gujarat was formed and this article has nothing to do with it.It is very nearly WP:OR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - As per above comment and suggestions by @Pharaoh of the Wizards:. CutestPenguin ^discuss 17:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was reached. Chillum Need help? Type ((ping|Chillum)) 16:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2009–10 Liga Bet[edit]

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

This is a forth division season results. Fails to satisfy Football notability Guidelines. scope_creep talk 18:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy keep The nominator does not appear to have read the guidelines they are quoting (which is actually an essay), as it does not make any reference to articles on league seasons. However, it does quite clearly state that "All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable." (Liga Bet clubs play in the Israel State Cup, and therefore the league meets this criteria), and therefore I see no reason why a league season article should be deemed deletable (particularly as they exist for numerous other regional, non-professional leagues). Number 5 7 18:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I second Number 57's remark. All IFA-affiliated leagues' members in Israel are eligible for the cup, and therefore, not only fourth tier meets the criteria, even fifth tier (which I plan to add in the future) and what was previously the sixth tier are eligible. Eranrabl (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Number 5 7 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - The league itself may be notable, but not sufficiently notable for an article about its individual seasons. The division is divided into regional groups, which has traditionally been an indicator that individual season articles are probably not required. – PeeJay 21:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @PeeJay2K3: We have individual season articles about leagues down to level 9/10 in England. Do you not think it's a bit ridiculous that level four in Israel is not deemed as notable? (and yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it the precedent would suggest that being regionalised is not a problem for league season articles). Number 57 21:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I was always under the impression that regional divisions weren't deemed automatically notable. If they pass WP:GNG, that's fine, but I think that only national divisions should have these articles. I'd be very surprised if those season articles about English level 10 divisions have anything beyond a minimal lead section and a series of tables. – PeeJay 22:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - There are at least two websites (in Hebrew) dedicated for Israeli lower leagues, from third to fifth tier (doublepass.sport5.co.il, goler1.co.il), as well not-as-deep coverage in major news websites (walla.co.il, one.co.il, panet.co.il, etc.) and coverage of individual teams in local news websites. I think it might comply with WP:GNG.Eranrabl (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Based on the League notability, "All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable." and just to mention, last season, fourth tier club, Maccabi Sektzia Ma'alot-Tarshiha, have reached the quarter finals of the national cup. definitely eligible. Franforce (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS which is quite clear that only top professional leagues need there own season articles. Seems a big WP:NOTSTATS violation as well. @Franforce:, @Number 57: your comments seem to misunderstand that this is an AfD about a season article, not the league, unless I have misread them. Fenix down (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Fenix down: WP:NSEASONS is about seasons of individual clubs, which I fully agree should only be allowed for fully-professional leagues (and have argued this in the past when people have created season articles on clubs in the Football Conference, for instance). However, we are talking about a league season here, not a club one, and as I pointed out, these are widely extant for numerous non-professional leagues (e.g. this level 9/10 league in England). I've also amended my initial response. Number 5 7 15:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. Lower level leagues do not merit individual season articles if GNG is not met. GiantSnowman 09:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: It can't fail WP:NSEASONS, because that guideline is only about seasons for individual clubs. This is about a league season, and there are numerous other examples of lower league seasons on Wikipedia (all the way down to level 10 in England). Number 57 11:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 11:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I already addressed that argument above. Eranbl also pointed out that there is coverage of this league which counts towards WP:GNG. Number 5 7 12:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails WP Nseasons. Szzuk (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I know it isn't a team, still fails. Szzuk (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - That makes no sense. The guideline is not about league seasons, so it cannot fail it. Number 57 16:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - There is no specific guidance for such a specific case as this. Nseasons is as close as we're going to get. The whole league is barely notable so why we'd want whole unpopulated seasons is beyond me. Szzuk (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - League seasons are magnitudes more notable than club seasons, so the guideline is not relevant in any way. As I've pointed out already, numerous other articles on regional league seasons exist, and have done for several years. As for this being "unpopulated", have you even looked at the article? It's complete - it has the league tables, playoff results, club changes etc. Number 5 7 17:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I've seen the article, it is populated in all the ways Nseasons say we should avoid...Szzuk (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Again, Nseasons is irrelevant, as it is about club seasons. But anyway, it has enough prose in it to qualify for WP:DYK, so it's clearly a viable article. Number 5 7 17:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I think the information needs summarising and a paragraph placed in the league article. Szzuk (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 19:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - in addition to the earlier arguments, if deleted, this would have to be redirected and merged to 20 other articles about the league. But then we'd be looking at splitting that article because it's too big. This works. No harm, no foul. Nfitz (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As per Number 57 and Eranrabl .Strictly speaking WP:NSEASONS is about individual club seasons not about the league seasons.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Finally, someone that has actually read the guideline! Number 5 7 12:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural Note: This debate was closed as 'keep' by a non-administrator. This closure was in error, as there is no consensus whatsoever in the above discussion. While acknowledging that this discussion has been going on for some time and a resolution would be good, I have relisted for another 7 days so hopefully consensus can be reached one way or another in the additional period. Obviously, if that isn't possible, closing as "no consensus" would be appropriate. Daniel (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - As above with the other keep arguments. I think its unfair to deem this to fail notability, fact is it's a well written article and I were to be involved in Israeli football I would appreciate this. Regionality doesn't really mean it can't have a separate article - many countries a) frequently change the regions and how lower league are organised, so who knows this could become a national league one day, and b) have even 2nd tiers regionalised, for example Bulgaria has done so until recently. This season seems to important also with the fact that it was the closure of Liga Artzit which means that the season was important in terms of restructuring the league. Anyway who are we to say the English Conference North/South (7th tier) is more notable than the Israeli 4th division. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Night Runners[edit]

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

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

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

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

The band fails WP:BAND. Additionally they lack the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to merit an article per WP:GNG. STATic message me! 04:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps you should read A7 in the speedy deletion section as it states: It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied and any claim against the page would be inadmissible. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion. Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7. --Iampixiedust (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning just because you may not be familiar with the show "X Factor USA" , Richard Mason, or "The Night Runners" for that matter, does not grant you the right to request deletion of this page when substantial evidence and references have been cited to discredit your accusation of The Night Runners page being deleted. --Iampixiedust (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page should not be deleted because all references have been already previously approved. All references have been well credited from reliable sources such as IMDB, and The X Factor (U.S. season 1) Wikipedia page. No content on this page violates any copyrights. All content is verifiable, and all terms and conditions are met. I kindly ask that you do not delete this page.--Iampixiedust (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is, IMDb is not usable as a source to give notability. It can be used to back up trivial details but does not give notability in and of itself. Being on a show doesn't automatically give notability either. It can help raise the chances of a band gaining coverage quite substantially, but if a band (or anyone or anything, for that matter) is known for one specific thing or show then we typically redirect to the show's article. We can't really use Wikipedia articles to back up notability either. Basically, IMDb and Wikipedia are usable as WP:TRIVIAL source, meaning that you can use them to back up basic details but cannot give notability. As far as the other sources go, we cannot use forum posts in any way, shape, or form except in very, very rare circumstances. (Usually the exception is that it's a post by the official person/band/organization's account and we can verify that it's them, meaning it's a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot give notability.) Now as far as the other sources go, we have two sites (Jawoco, PopTower) that are considered to be non-reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. One of the biggest issues with the site is that we can't verify their editorial process or if they even have one. Many sites don't have an editorial board and/or don't have an editorial process to speak of, which would make them unusable. We also have to take into consideration whether or not the site is just basing their material off of a press release. In any case, these aren't usable as reliable sources either. What we need to show notability are sources in places such as newspaper articles, reviews of their work (in reliable, verified places like Pitchfork, AllMusic), and coverage in places that is independent of the band, their producers, their label, or X-Factor, and is considered to be a reliable, notability giving source per Wikipedia's guidelines. I just don't see where we have any usable notability giving RS on the page at all. I'll try to see what I can find, but offhand I would say that I'm leaning towards deleting this, as they're only known for participating in the early rounds of X-Factor and did not make it far enough in the competition to where they'd warrant a mention on the Wikipedia article for season 1. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Other than the CNN Latino interview and the coverage from a local Miami station, there just isn't anything out there that would really establish notability for this band. They've performed in a few locations but not in any place that has gained them substantial coverage. They didn't make it far enough in the X-Factor competition to warrant a mention there, as they were eliminated fairly early on in the group rounds. It'd be nice if we could mention them, but the group/early elimination rounds for X-Factor (and most competition reality shows) have an extremely large amount of competitors and we can't really warrant having a list of 20-40+ people/groups that were eliminated early on. It's just far, far WP:TOOSOON for the band to have an article at this point in time. There isn't really any online buzz about them at all, not even in the fan or blog arenas, which is fairly telling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May i remind you that per Wikipedia Guidelines for speedy deletion you are all contesting deletion based of your opinion on notability: Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7. --Iampixiedust (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning just because you may not be familiar with "X Factor USA" or "The Night Runners" for that matter, does not grant you the right to request deletion of this page when substantial evidence and references have been cited to discredit your accusation of The Night Runners page being deleted. --Iampixiedust (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment @Iampixiedust:, this is not a speedy deletion discussion. I am not commenting on the notability of this group one way or the other, but you are misguided. Speedy deletion is just that, a process that will result in an article being deleted within minutes. This (called the Articles for Deletion process) is a full discussion on the encyclopedic merits of a topic, and unless something grievous such as copyright violation is discovered, the discussion will last a full week, possibly longer. At this point, your best option is to demonstrate exactly why this group is deserving of an encyclopedic entry. IMDb is not a reliable source, and a singular mention by a local station does not meet the General Notability Guidelines, which is our most-often-used rule-of-thumb here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: I "repeat", this page was already approved by another ADMIN. If there was an issue with this article to begin with, the ADMIN would have brought it up. Everything was approved and warranted the right to be included into Wikipedia. If more references are wanted, i have already gone in to provide more credible sources such as MTV and SongKick.com. However, do not delete this page. --Iampixiedust (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Comment: Speaking as an admin here, there is no way for an admin to officially "approve" an article. I'm not sure where you got that idea but it's not how things work on Wikipedia. The criteria for speedy deletion are similarly irrelevant; the criteria for speedy deletion are necessarily much narrower than for deletion in general, because "speedy deletion" is "nuke on sight without discussion". If it had met the speedy criteria, we would not be discussing it here because the article would already be gone. The "articles for deletiojn" process, which is what we're engaged in right now, does take notability into consideration, specifically in this case the general notability guideline and the notability criteria for bands and musicians. — Gwalla | Talk 22:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The group is deserving of an encyclopedic entry not only for their time as reality television competitors but as public figures after the show with their music career gaining attention from several publications as i have already provided. Moreover, to ease your minds and gain your satisfaction, I have provided several more credible sources such as MTV and SongKick.com. I now ask that you kindly remove the page from Articles of Deletion. --Iampixiedust (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. They didn't make it far on the reality competition, and they've only released one single so far. No evidence that they are notable per WP:BAND. If the situation changes in the future, we can revisit the issue then; however, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and based on what is known right now, they are not notable and should not have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Keep: Given that they were on television, released music, have updated publications cited (MTV and others), i believe substantial evidence has been given that they are notable per WP:BAND. --CaseyJones12 (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC) — CaseyJones12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

*Keep: I also agree, i think this Wikipedia entry carries more than enough evidence/references to stay within Wikipedia.--Pola9847 (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC) — Pola9847 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

*Keep: Ok, i just reviewed this Wikipedia article The Night Runners and i agree with Pola9847, CaseyJones12, and Iampixiedust. This entry seems perfectly suitable within the guidelines of Wikipedia and meets the General Notability Guidelines. Also, making irrelevant claims like what C.Fred said: About Wikipedia is not a crystal ball clearly shows that there is animosity towards The Night Runners. Such comments about a Wikipedia entry are a bit ridiculous if you ask me. In the end, i see this entry as perfectly suitable to be entered in Wikipedia. --Erickson1459 (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC) — Erickson1459 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Comment - These accounts appear to be created by the same person solely to offset the votes on this discussion. The contributions clearly speak for themselves (here, here, and here). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These have now been confirmed by checkuser as sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampixiedust). January (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Yes, they're a band, but it does not meet the guidelines that are focused primarily on the notability of bands. Searching for reliable sources (see here) show that the band does not have any sort of recognition. No awards, no publication of independent articles that are redundant, and no evidence of any cultural or subjective impact. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I'm striking through the comments made by confirmed socks of User:Iampixiedust. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction, of User:Mason8252. User:Iampixiedust is apparently one of his socks. I will, however, leave those posts unmarked but I do want to come and note that all of the "keep" rationales were posted by socks. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

H. S. Doreswamy[edit]

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

This article doesn't really explain notability and the only ref given is youtube. This page [32] tells more about him but there is nothing to make him stand out from any other person who takes part in anti government protests Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Najlah Feanny[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Natg 19 (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smart Live Casino[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide WP:CORPDEPTH to evidence notability under WP:CORP. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to a list of related companies or TV shows in the UK. No reliable sources to show notability. RS need to be found and added to keep. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources, and I don't see anywhere to merge to, even if there was a case for doing so, which I also don't see. --Michig (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Category:Television channels in the United Kingdom as cant seem to find any other articles, (I can redirect sandbox to it so I assume article can be too?), –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY, and I don't think any of the potential redirect targets are appropriate. Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hardly an overwhelming consensus to keep, but I doubt that further relisting will generate a consensus to delete.Mojo Hand (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Goulet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage other than self-published sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment -- Except where I suspect a hoax, I judge articles on their content. My question is, "what makes him notable?". Four books of which I have never heard, though one is published by Nelson, a reputable publihser of Christian books, might just about make him notable, if the books are widely circulated. For the rest, I see little notable: pastor of a NN church (no WP link to church); local TV apprearnace are NN; involvement with a university extension program is not enough to make him a notable academic. My preliminary view is that he is NN, but I am not voting to delete as the books just might mke him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- I vote to keep the article. The subject is the leader of the third-largest church in the state of Nevada.^[1] Though this church does not currently have a Wikipedia article, it may qualify as notable, though that is likely outside the scope of this discussion. As stated in the article, the subject has been recognized as a "Distinguished Nevadan" by the state's University system, an award which they state "is bestowed upon prominent individuals who have made significant achievements that have contributed to the cultural, scientific or social advancement of Nevada."^[2] Although this award may not qualify as "well-known" per WP:ANYBIO, it bears noting here and may be considered "significant." The subject and the church have also received coverage in local and national media.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] The subject has also received coverage in French media^[7], which per WP:GNG may also qualify as legitimate sources. Per WP:AUTHOR, the subject appears to be regarded as an important figure by peers in the Christian and French-Christian world.^[8]^[9]^[10] RyanLV (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment -- Regarding User:RyanLVs addition of links and info, I've examined each source and provide a summary below:

Claim: The subject is the leader of the third-largest church in the state of Nevada.[33]

Appears to be a listing of churches in Nevada by size. Two churches are larger, and only the pastor the largest (with 4 times more members) has a Wiki article.

Claim: The subject has been recognized as a "Distinguished Nevadan" by the state's University system. [34]

He was.

Claim: The subject and the church have also received coverage in local and national media.

first article

Goulet is quoted several places in this article in Charisma (magazine).

second article

Not even mentioned in this article.

third article

His name is mentioned once in the article, for a one-line quote.

fourth article

A listing of newspaper articles with the name "Paul Goulet". One article had some depth. One was about a zookeeper by the same name.

Claim: The subject appears to be regarded as an important figure by peers in the Christian and French-Christian world.

first article

A significant article in a respected French-Canadian newspaper.

second article

This is an advertisement for a speaking appearance by Goulet

third article

This is weird, non-encyclopedic interview with Goulet's family, produced by Trinity Broadcasting Network, which it appears also broadcasts his shows.

Interesting that this article was missed, but may contribute to his notability. It's about a lady who drove her car through the front of his church, and it mentions a previous article in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper where Goulet was mentioned. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment -- To clarify some items mentioned above:
- In reading this entire article I'm not aware of any advertisement for a speaking appearance.
- In reference to the Trinity Broadcasting link (subjective "weirdness" aside), the network does not appear to air shows by the subject as he is not listed as one of their hosts. He has, however, appeared as a guest on some of their programming, as evidenced by this video and this video. He has also appeared as a guest on one other Christian network.
- In any case, my intent in including these items was to serve as evidence that he may be respected by his peers and not necessarily that these items would serve as an encyclopedic source. I believe that If the sourcing of an article itself needs work, per WP:NNC and WP:PRESERVE, the article does not necessarily justify removal but instead warrants fixing. RyanLV (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, this was the ad for the speaking tour. The links were hard to sort out the way they were added. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The disagreement clearly is over the extent to which this information is verifiable, and the discussion, even after two relists, is not developed enough to resolve that point. I suggest a substantive and openended discussion in a better locale than an AFD about the subject, perhaps focusing on the apparently well-developed Portuguese version, to be analyzed by those with the language skills to see if its sourcing meets our standards. postdlf (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of best-selling albums in Brazil[edit]

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

Totally unreliable greek source with sales numbers, fake numbers all over the article. Official sales form Brazil is almost impossible to find. max24 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep. Sure needs some cleanup and corrections, but I wouldn't call the numbers simply "fake". The sources only list the certifications, so one must understand the certification methods and then calculate the total sale numbers. There might have been some calculating mistakes. While the ~~proponent~~ nominator says "official sales form Brazil is almost impossible to find", half the list is sourced by ABPD, which is recognized as a fine source. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 06:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nominator. Only other solution is to simply list shipments "only" according to certifications available on the ABPD website (which is very much incomplete).--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Note that the equivalent article on the Portguese wiki is a featured list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Maybe it needs work to provide better refs, but that's no reason to delete. Andrewa (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for inability to verify contents, a violation of policy, one of the five pillars of the Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edge detection. After two relistings there is no concensus to delete or keep. As there is limited material for a merge, a redirect based on the consensus of cast !votes is the logical outcome. A section/mention of the term can be added to Edge detection if appropriate. Page history will be retained if attribution to the creator is required. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edgel[edit]

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

Orphan since created 7 years ago. No evidence that in is 'commonly used'. Not even used in parallel article on this topic that it links to. If there is reliable evidence to support this word it is time it was added - otherwise deletion seems the best remedy. S a g a C i t y (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment—Edgel is an actual term-of-art with several hits in the peer reviewed literature (e.g., Edgel aggregation and edge description and Edgel index for large-scale sketch-based image search), but there's just not going to be much to say beyond they're pixels along an edge and thus useful in edge-detection algorithms. There's already a wiktionary entry. Probably delete per WP:NOTDIC unless someone else can come up with sources that discuss the topic rather than just discuss how it's used. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/redirect into edge detection, more or less, that article could be clearer that some of the techniques are making a binary determination as to whether a pixel is "on an edge", and that "edgel" or "edge pixel" refer to those pixels which are "on a recognized edge.". That's really all there is to say about the subject beyond what's already in the target article, but the term is common enough that the redirect, and a mention in that article, seems warranted. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge/redirect into edge detection. There aren't in-depth RS needed for notability, but this term exists in the image processing literature, so is verifiable. Edge detection is a reasonable target. Content-based image retrieval would be another, but merging there would put undue weight on what is a detail in a large field of study. --Mark viking (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bhojpuri Boys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Last AfD was closed as no consensus only because it was relisted twice and nobody other than the nominator commented. Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails notability under any criteria. Might consider WP:SALTing as well if article will be recreated in another seven months. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep This band is the most prominent representatives of Bhojpuri songs in Mauritius, some of their songs has been major hits in Mauritius, one of their song 'Naiya Sirey' was elected Bhojpuri song of the year by a radio in 2003. Their songs are still regularly broadcast on Tvs and radio in Mauritius. Indeed , you can see most of their songs on youtube has more than 100,000 views. Here are some articles from reliable sources [35][36][37] [38][39].Kingroyos (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sam's GS Stash[edit]

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

Represents one brand of the Black Cat Cigar Company. Obviously the company does not have an article, otherwise a redirect would be proper. Delete this article because it fails WP:GNG. – S. Rich (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete it. Glacierman (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not notable product....William 13:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability for this product. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mercury Tilt Switch[edit]

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

This band appears to fail WP:BAND. Its albums were self-published by founder Andrew James McGarry on his occasional indie label Pet Piranha Records. The most prominent mentions I've found online have been an entry at the Internet Underground Music Archive, an album review in an e-zine by two other British musicians, a user-contributed bio from last.fm, and a trivial mention on a personal blog. There is no evidence that the band ever received an award or widespread radio play, or was the subject of a non-trivial published work. The title is unsuitable for redirection to Mercury switch because it would violate WP:NCCAPS. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NCCAPS is for article titles, not for redirects; they are categorised by templates such as ((R from other capitalisation)). Peter James (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 August 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. There's a little bit of web coverage out there, including two staff reviews of their singles from Drowned in Sound [40][41]. There are three pieces from The Scotsman: a live review, an album review and a few paragraphs from when they supported Biffy. There's also an album review in The List. I think that just about scrapes the bar at WP:BAND and meets the WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 09:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made 6 identical keep as above !votes in 4 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Bands with marginal notability clutter up our namespace and so should be deleted when their title would tend confuse readers looking for the primary topic. Andrew (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That's not a reason to delete, only to move the article. Peter James (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep notability may be marginal, but coverage seems to be significant enough and on several occasions. Peter James (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep they have had significant coverage, as sparklism shows, plus often featured on Vic Galloway's radio shows. --Vclaw (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charlie and The Bhoys[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Unref article on living people. Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - or list their CDs and sales.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VOID (Vanna album)[edit]

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

The article makes no claim of notability and has no references. I can find a few promotional articles online, but nothing substantial, and no evidence that it has charted. Slashme (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I agree that it is pretty empty, but there are a few reviews, like these altpress.com, newnoisemagazine.com, rocksound.tv and this interview. Needs a lot of work. Karst (talk) 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Can someone clarify how reliable and independent these sources are, and whether they indicate notability beyond what any run-of-the-mill album would have? I get that hardcore music doesn't have the same media profile that commercially marketed music does, but I'm not sure whether this album is truly notable. --Slashme (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made 6 identical keep as above !votes in 4 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JMC Academy[edit]

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

A search fails to find any significant secondary sources, current sources are academy website and a reference regarding directorship held by founder. Fails WP:ORG Flat Out let's discuss it 11:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Note that the nominator removed material from this article before nominating it for deleteion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Tertiary schools are presumed to be wp:notable. This one checks out using Google books and Google news. Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Can you please provide links to support that presumption and those stories? Small private vocational education providers are a dime a dozen in Australia, and few are actually notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you try looking in WP:OUTCOMES? Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which sources are you referring to? I didn't have much luck with Google (lots of PR-type stuff and routine directory listings, but no in-depth coverage) Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At WP:Articles for deletion/Kippax Uniting Church, I made a comment that gave evidence that the nom and the !voters had not looked at the sources in the article. Your subsequent post nominally ignored my comment, but the nature of your reply gave support to the practice of ignoring sources in the article. You have yet to agree that nominators should mark deadlinks as a part of WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other point here is that since you ignored the question I asked, and this is common knowledge, I suggest you ask at the help desk. Unscintillating (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete One of dozens (hundreds?) of small non-notable Australian private sector institutions. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency record for this institution states that it's not self-accrediting, [42], which seems a pretty important threshold test for the significance of Australian tertiary providers in the absence of reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good afternoon (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I can understand the plan and simple "it's not notable argument. In looking around, other then it exists, there is nothing that I can find to allow for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Memehir Girma Wondimu[edit]

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

Non-notable public speaker. Only source present is a CNN iReport article (which is user submitted content). Fails WP:BIO. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 07:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 07:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 07:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 07:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firgelli Automations[edit]

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

Article comes off more as a puff/promotional piece for a small company and the company owner. This company does not appear to be notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Stesmo (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources - PR releases and other junk don't count. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Featured on a episode of a TV show?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: An article by a WP:SPA account, sourced predominantly to PR. Those sources that do exist confirm existence but do not support the notability for the firm. AllyD (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Desktop alert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not sure of its notability but certainly it violates WP:No Original Research. It is waiting for sources since exactly 5 years; which means either those sources do not exist or the creator of the article does not bother to add them. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete—No google scholar hits on "desktop alert"+"information logistics". Nothing in google books. ghits are just on many clones of the en.WP article. No indication of notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per comment above. Unreferenced and possibly WP:NEO. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice to a redirect j⚛e decker ^talk 17:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gordon Murdie[edit]

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

Murdie appeared on one BBC Scotland program, and later ran for the Edinburgh City Council. Neither of these things are enough to make him notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The BBC Scotland programme was about the Edinburgh Statutory Repairs scandal: Gordon Murdie was one of the key witnesses and appears still to be actively involved in promoting investigation and prosecution of the complex fraud. The Statutory Repairs fraud in Edinburgh is a long complex issue which is not over yet. There's a lack of encyclopedic documentation - my knowledge of Gordon Murdie's involvement is from a current Facebook group for victims of the Statutory Repairs fraud - because the legal aspects of this are still up in the air and newspapers etc are tending not to commit themselves about it. But I think that once the legal case is resolved there'll be a lot more material, and it's likely Gordon Murdie's page will be expanded. SeraphinaWinsham (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 August 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 August 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comment above sounds like a crystal-ball phrasing claim that there will be reliable sources while admitting we lack them at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An article about the Statutory Repairs Scandal is certainly legitimate — but that doesn't mean we need a poorly sourced separate standalone WP:BLP of every single individual person involved in it, especially if all that article does is state that he was a witness, and doesn't actually say anything substantive about him as an individual. Delete, or redirect to Statutory Repairs, Edinburgh. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Non-notable individual. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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