Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 14 (Tue) May 13 (Mon) May 12 (Sun) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 23 February	25 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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)} 10:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archdiocese of United Kingdom[edit]

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

This appears to be an article an archdiocese of a relatively small Anglo-Catholic church called the Anglo-Catholic Church. Which doesn't have its own article. Also, I couldn't find many sources for the article, and the only sources in the article are not independent. If its parent church had its own article, I could have suggested a redirect, but it doesn't. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't tell which branch/type of Anglo-Catholicism this one is. Currently Anglo-Catholic Church is a red-link, but it should be redirected to whatever is the appropriate specific denomination. I think this should be sorted out, rather than deleting an article about an archdiocese. Has the issue been posted to WikiProject Religions or anywhere else? --23:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the website mentioned in the article, the church in question is just simply called the Anglo-Catholic Church. As I mentioned earlier, I would have instead redirected this if its church did have an article, but it hasn't. Note that a related article by the same author, Diocese of united kingdom, was just deleted today (it was earlier a redirect, I'll contact the deleting admin to request a copy of the article). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - might want to add Metropolis of United Kingdom into this discussion as well.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no substantive third-party information about this archdiocese, the metropolis, or indeed the church itself, so I conclude it fails on general notability. States that the archdiocese is based in Glasgow, though since the only contact address is a flat in Castlemilk [1] it seems unlikely that it has a significant presence in Glasgow or the UK. Archbishop Kramer appears to be busy though, holding high office in the "Old Roman Catholic Church" [2] and the "Catholic Apostolic Church of Jerusalem" [3], as well as the Anglo-Catholic Church. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jonathan Oldenbuck. Fails WP:ORG. -- 101.119.14.126 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The lack of an article on the denomination suggests that it is a very small one, giving itself ideas above its station or membership. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie in a Penguin Suit[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Wikipedia is for established items, not "Up and Coming" films. Additionally, other stuff exists. The bottom line is the film fails to meet the criteria in WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as cited in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding quite a bit of hits for it, although I do note that most of these are very short articles. What works in its favor is that some of these are mini-reviews as well as articles. ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes general notability per sources which are already included in the article. Tokyogirl79's reviews above are also valid. Cavarrone 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, "substantial" is a bit of an overstatement. WP:NFILM specifically discounts capsule reviews, and none of these reviews are longer than a few sentences. Whether it passes the WP:GNG is up for debate, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the Fast Company article qualifies as substantive coverage; the rest, maybe not, but I don't mind adding them all up to show some marginal notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article explains a film that was generally well-known when it was released on the web, and it has a full cast and crew to go along with it. It deserves to stand amongst other short film-related Wikipedia articles, especially considering those other such articles are more unnecessary and have less notability to help them to be thought as relevant. --Matthew (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to ArcLight Hollywood. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArcLight Sherman Oaks[edit]

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

I just stumbled upon this somewhat at random. From what I can tell, it's a movie theater in a shopping mall, which in this day and age is hardly unique enough to be notable per se. The only effort made to establish notability is a mention of Roger Daltrey giving a talk there one time, which may or may not be coincidental with the fact that a photo from said talk was uploaded to Commons. Thus far, not buying notability here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sherman Oaks Galleria. Not so notable on its own but a significant component (in both its former and current manifestations) of the (in)famous shopping mall whence came the culture portrayed in "Valley Girl", the film version of Fast Times at Ridgemont High, etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ArcLight Hollywood, which is already a redirect target for the chain of theaters: ArcLight Cinemas. The useful information from this article is already present in my proposed target. This particular link in the chain is not independently notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ArcLight Hollywood per Alf. The Sherman Oaks Galleria would also be acceptable as a target, but I think the ArcLight article is better since it already has information about the topic. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. Chawla[edit]

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

Sources mentioned not verifiable as the article uses excessive self published materials. Except one, no reliable third party source found. A similar article is here and another one deleted much earlier. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 20:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@βα£α, Hi while I was creating this article I have seen some revisions / history of article so with that mentioned request I searched & found some good and reliable references including his company mentioned on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Mein_Lahore, so I would request you to consider my request and read again. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Citing Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn or personal website is not acceptable as per WP:SPS. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Seems pretty clear this page is just WP:PROMOTION and likely an WP:AUTO. Multiple references to Facebook and Linkedin are particularly unfortunate. Certainly nothing on there that indicates it meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. mikeman67 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person in business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@mikeman67, I have created this article and I don't think that this is for promotional activity, it is a simple biography of A. Chawla, which have some good notable references. I am reading Wikipedia from so many years and I think you also do that. So just read again, it is your thinking how you take any article in a way. PradeepChowdhury (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Yorgos Lanthimos. If/when it meets wp:nff it can be broken out again -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lobster[edit]

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

Filming has not yet begun, doesn't meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 20:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, award, and star cast. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yorgos Lanthimos until principal filming begins per WP:NFF. Until filming begins there is no film, regardless of who's signed on to the project. Once the film exists then mentioning the award it garnered will be appropriate, but in the meantime the existing mention on Lanthimos's page is sufficient. --ElHef (Meep?) 04:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userify as WP:TOOSOON, a bit better than WP:CRYSTAL but still not acceptable, despite its award. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Yorgos Lanthimos where it is already written of as winning awards for its screenplay. Not quite enough yet for the future film for it to be an exception to WP:NFF and we do have a decent place to redirect. let it be spun out, undeleted, or recreated after filming and a lot more coverage of its production. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article says shooting is scheduled to begin on March 24, 2014. Is it really worth the complications of deleting, redirecting, and/or merging when it will be eligible for re-creation in two weeks? - Dravecky (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Gordon-Cumming[edit]

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

There is nothing to be said about this person other than that she exists, has held some mid-rung positions in some non-notable organizations, and (like millions of other people), has written some short stories that have apparently drawn no particular notice. bd2412 T 20:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines specifically WP:AUTHOR which is typically met with multiple independent book reviews in reliable sources. -- GreenC 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The number of redlinks for her anthologies says it all. If she were notable, she would get into anthologies with other notable people, or get her own stand-alone works published. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Pugh (Fellow Consultant)[edit]

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

Promotional, lack of reliable, independent sources Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep About 100 library holding for each of his books, but I can find only notices, not substantial reviews, 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional content and improperly sourced. If someone wants to write a proper article it would be better to start fresh. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to DGG's WorldCat, I'm also seeing high end-user holdings at LibraryThing (book ranked book #142,548 out of 8 million titles cataloged by users), but also unable to find book reviews. Unusual. However a search of "Interface Oriented Design" pugh syllabus shows use in the classroom. That would explain both the high library and end-user holdings (school textbook). How many syllabus examples are needed to prove notability is purely subjective but most syllabus are ephemeral so even seeing a couple is a good sign there are many more not visible and this shows a dozen at least (have not looked through them all). The article content can be cleaned up easily enough since AfD is topic-level not content-level. -- GreenC 02:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think my argument above is for WP:NBOOK not AUTHOR. If anyone knows how or if a textbook author is applied, perhaps with WP:PROF. -- GreenC 02:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was deletion requested by author, no need for AFD to continue. Friday (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isrg Rajan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. I don't believe this person is independently notable and believe there is COI editing going on by the article creator. JMHamo (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should not be deleted: I went on Google and Bing search and found that most of people has raised the question about this person. I believe that this article should be on wikipedia. It will be more delighting to add more contents and sources other then nominating this article for deletion. Somehow this article is not harming a social or a community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iraag (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain in which way this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria? What exactly has he done to merit an article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the http://epaper.patrika.com/42226/Jabalpur-Patrika/13-06-2012#page/16/1 for more information. This will clear your doubts. I've added some more reliable sources, since the template asked for secondary sources Iraag (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to read that. What does it say about Rajan, and how does it establish that he is notable by Wikipedia standards?

And as for your 'references', citing a page merely because it has the letters 'ISRG' on it [9] won't fool anyone - if I see you adding another fake reference like that again, I will report the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless subject has considerable coverage in proper sources. So far, he's somebody who has a website, and did well on some test. Looks like self-promotion, and I see nothing yet to indicate why Wikipedia would have an article on this person. Friday (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G7- Main contributor to the article might have requested deletion by blanking the page Hitro talk 19:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional films[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this article for the third time. The past two discussions have resulted in no consensus. There is no criteria to enter this list, and it will just grow and grow because shows constantly make fake movies. Many of these films are just a passing mention. There is nothing notable about that. JDDJS (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:STICK. To nominate the same article three times in less than 6 months seems to be gaming the system. I will reiterate here my argument from the first nomination: The topic appears to meet notability guidelines per WP:NOTESAL as seen by a reference like this. However, I would suggest starting over with the list and require selection criteria, in this case requiring a secondary source to add an item. This list reminds me of List of teen films, which was this before I argued to keep it and revised it. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both nominations ended in no consensus, so I'm not trying to game the system. Your comparison to List of teen films is not valid because with teen films, everything in the list has its own article. And if you really think that the article can be improved, why haven't you done anything yet? JDDJS (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a fictional film has to have its own article. If it is in a film that is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, then that is enough. As I suggested before, we can adjust the scope to say that it is a list of films featuring fictional films. That would make it akin to lists of films featuring a key element of some sort. Also, per WP:BEFORE, if an article can be improved through normal editing, then it should not be deleted. The present condition of the article itself is irrelevant. We don't delete to clean up. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE doesn't apply because I don't think that it can be improved. You're the one saying that it can, but it's been over 6 months since I first nominated, and you have yet to prove to your point. By your logic, we should have an article List of fictional characters and include every fictional character to appear in fiction, even it's only for 2 secs. JDDJS (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JDDJS: I have listed sources below that demonstrate the potential of this list on Wikipedia. Such a list is reinforced by guidelines at WP:LISTN and WP:CSC. Do you not think that these sources can be used to compile a list here? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I used to not participate in these discussions, but I've completely lost patience with deletion discussions about lists erring on the side of "keep." Fill the AfD discussions with nothing but re-nominations of listcruft until admins knock it off with this nonsense. "Gaming the system?" The system isn't working.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, this doesn't really add much to the sum of human knowledge. Some of it could perhaps be selectively merged into Fictional film.—S Marshall T/C 02:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a patently nonsensical list, full of things of very minor note (at best), the inclusion criteria is very vague (at best), and there is little evidence of the list being notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fictional film or delete. Does not satisfy WP:LISTN. Could perhaps be selectively merged to fictional film, but I don't see any call to do so. If there are any actually notable examples, they can be mentioned in that article. Basically, it looks like generic list cruft to me: few (if any) notable entries, no real attempt at independent sourcing, and indiscriminate inclusion criteria. This is the sort of obsessive pop culture trivia catalog that I would expect to find on Wikia or TV Tropes, not Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lukeno94 and NinjaRobotPirate, see the following reliable sources that list fictional films, warranting a list per WP:LISTN:

Fictional films that should be made at MSN
Top 14 Fake Movies from Real Movies at AMC TV
Top 10 Movies Within Movies at IGN
The Ten Best Fake Movies Ever (Not) Made at Crave Online
Faux Real: 10 Fake Movies and Shows We’d Pay to See! at VH1
Best Films Within Films at Shortlist
10 Greatest Films Within Films at What Culture

This list could be based on these sources to warrant inclusion per WP:LISTN. It's a topic of interest to readers, and the list could link together film articles that have fictional films, so readers could learn more about other kinds of films that have the same common content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. AMC TV's bit is a blog. CraveOnline doesn't really appear to be a RS; nor does VH1, and I'm highly dubious about Shortlist and What Culture! (the latter is just a platform for selling your own articles). Almost all of the others are "filler" pieces, as indeed most Top X lists of any similar nature are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was dubious about ShortList, too, but it's apparently a UK magazine. I think some people have tried to get What Culture blacklisted. Not 100% sure about CraveOnline, but I've always assumed it was a reliable source. Maybe I should have actually researched it. I don't like making articles based on fluff, but I'm a bit more open-minded now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One look at that Shortlist piece screams "tabloid" - it doesn't matter if it is a magazine or not, this is not a reliable one. They don't even police their own comments sections, which are full of spam; a clear alarm bell to me. They don't even have an "about us" page. CraveOnline is hit-and-miss, looking even closer. Some of their stuff is obviously tabloidy, just from the subject names (Idiot Box being an example), some of it may be OK. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll just copy and paste the one I used last time. This list is completely arbitrary, and it contains little encyclopedic value. It is no different than "List of fictional fast food chains" or "List of fictional addresses and phone numbers." If a fictional film has enough relevance to the topic, the most it needs is a redirect. Something like an article about fictional things that later became real or an overall article on fictional films, provided there are actual sources about the topic, would be fine, but there is no value in a plain list without any restrictions or relevance. TTN (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TTN: WP:LISTN states, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." The sources I listed above are independent and reliable, so is there a reason that overrides this guideline? WP:CSC can also help determine criteria for what to include. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring whether the sources are valid or not, the fact that people have noted the existence of fictional films should not mean an immediate jump to a full, five thousand entry page of them. While being discussed as a group may be reason to make a list, it also talks about limiting such lists to avoid having them become too large. Those could be used to argue for a very limited list of notable fictional films that have received enough attention on Fictional film, but free license to list everything under the sun goes into indiscriminate territory. TTN (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TTN: Are you saying that you would support having a list for this topic if it was cleaned up? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would only think it would be viable were the entries limited to those that are actually of note. Something where a previously fictional concept was later developed into a real project, something that receives a good deal of attention outside of the context of the main work for some reason, or something like that would be required for them to be listed. Without something like that, the list becomes too unwieldy. I imagine the current list is only a tenth of its full potential, so "List of fictional films A-C" when the article gets too large really doesn't sound like a very good idea. TTN (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I am saying -- we can use the sources listed above to limit this list of fictional films. Most of the current items do not have any references indicating that it has been noticed and reported on. We could "start over" with the base list being derived from the above sources. Just because a fictional film is shown in a random film does not mean it has to be listed here. It should be worthy of note somewhere reliable and independently of Wikipedia and its editors. That can be the criteria for inclusion, making for a more digestible list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is that such a listing is still hypothetical at this point. Even if it is brought about, how many entries is it realistically going to have? Rather than just being a BEFORE issue, it seems like it could potentially be impossible, so my opinion is still to delete it. Either userfying it until such a time where that is viable or discussing the topic in Fictional film and later splitting it out should it reach that point seem like the best options. TTN (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support merging it to Fictional Film after paring off any non-sourced examples, then restoring it as a separate article if/when there's enough significant examples to merit such. DonIago (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Erik You keep saying that this article can be improved. If that's true, then why haven't you made any attempts to improve it? JDDJS (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons: I am busy with other tasks wiki and non-wiki, and the state of the article does not have a bearing on the notability of the topic. We do not delete an article on a notable topic just because it is messy, per WP:BEFORE. Do you still claim that this list is not notable per WP:LISTN, even though I have listed sources above? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be saying that, but given that the majority of sources are dubious, or are just filler things, I do still feel this fails LISTN. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you not consider reliable? We have MSN, AMC Networks, IGN, CraveOnline, VH1, and ShortList. I was not sure about What Culture, since I've seen it referenced in a Featured Article. But there is more than enough to show that this is a common trend and that Wikipedia can create a space in which it juxtaposes these items for readers' benefit. It may not be intellectual, but not everything on Wikipedia has to be. I hope you can try to imagine this list as something like list of films featuring surveillance rather than its present state. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to repeat myself, so please read my comments dated 15:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC) and 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC). Please tell me the FA that What Culture is in, because that reference is the least reliable of the bunch. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The use of a fake film as a plot point in the narrative of a real film (or other media) is well documented, and would be a reasonable subject of serious study. bd2412 T 15:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way that's not already being handed reasonably by Fictional film? Does a list of fictional films merit standalone status? DonIago (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- extraordinarily crufty, it's poorly sourced, and lacking encyclopedic merit because it's nothing but a slavish accumulation of trivia. Reyk _YO! 06:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk: Even if the article itself is poorly sourced, do you not think that the sources listed above are reliable and warrant an article per WP:LISTN? You cannot claim that this is cruft if these mainstream sources have listed these films within films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable cruft. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: What about the sources I listed above? Do you not think they warrant a list per WP:LISTN? "Cruft" is a poor label to apply when it is clear that such lists have been compiled in the mainstream. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, please stop badgering everyone who disagrees with you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I am contesting arguments for deletion as weak in the face of evidence to the contrary so the closing admin is aware that while the article is in poor shape, the topic can be considered notable based on the sources listed above. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't assuming bad faith. Your own evidence is very weak indeed, and you've utterly failed to respond to that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think I've failed to respond. I think that MSN, AMC Networks, IGN, CraveOnline, VH1, and ShortList are reliable sources, especially per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, where you do not. What source would be considered reliable? This is not the kind of element that requires specialist knowledge, just indications of noteworthiness outside the films themselves. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the sources you listed are so far from being reliable that it renders the entire lot dubious, for starters (if you think anything that is very obviously a "we pay for your articles no matter what" type website is reliable, then...) But reliability is not the only thing I was disputing; these lists are mere filler, as almost all of these types of lists are, and do not make this particular list notable. The concept of a "film in a film" is notable, an indiscriminate list of every potential film in a film is most definitely not compliant with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why one source not being considered reliable would somehow make everything else questionable as well. It's not a complicated list. We can agree that there are films within films, right? I'm not sure what kind of list you would actually consider appropriately reliable. What I linked is pretty typical of lists that can be juxtaposed here. Sometimes a list can certainly get weird (I think Indiewire had one about monster weddings, hah), but if there are several lists independent of each other about the same thing, that to me shows a larger interest that Wikipedia can serve. This article does suck. It needs to look more like list of films featuring surveillance, and I think readers would benefit from that kind of compilation. We can set up criteria for discriminate inclusion. If it appears on a list, or if it is noted by 3 sources, we could include it, rather than just some one-off mention. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either read my comments before replying, or simply don't bother replying. It is not one source that is very unlikely to be reliable, it is several of them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced or not I think it's cruft and should be deleted, Pestering everyone won't help its outcome you know!..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is your definition of cruft, then? WP:CRUFT#Approach says, "If there is an insufficient amount of reliable source coverage on the topic, the focus of the discussion should be WP:Notability... In the context of WP:NOT, the specific focus of the discussion may be that the article is a compilation of facts that reliable sources outside of fan-based reliable sources have not found interesting enough to publish." The sources I listed above are not fan-based. I am simply asking you to defend your argument for deletion because I do not think it has merit. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Erik Your sources might prove that the idea of film within a film is notable, but we already have an article on that at Story within a story. None of your sources prove that a list of every time a work of fiction makes up another work fiction is notable. JDDJS (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MSN, AMC Networks, IGN, CraveOnline, VH1, and ShortList all provided a list of films within films, and WP:LISTN says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Can you explain why that is not applicable here? We can have a general article and a list article, e.g. science fiction film and list of science fiction films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Strongest Possible Delete WP:LC This is an indiscriminate list, along the lines of List of actors with brown eyes, List of round objects, List of carbon based lifeforms. Every film ever made that isn't a documentary is a fictional film.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the list is indiscriminate? Similar lists have been published by MSN, AMC Networks, IGN, CraveOnline, VH1, and ShortList. WP:LISTN can apply here, and Wikipedia can juxtapose items from these independent lists here. That's what makes this list stand out compared to actors with brown eyes, round objects, etc. I recall arguing for deletion of a list of films featuring crossword puzzles because it could not meet WP:LISTN, but this list does. We can also rename the article to say something like List of films featuring fictional films so it does not seem misleading. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the title. I just realized it's a List of fake films. The inclusion criteria is still insufficiently discriminating and has already made for a long mindnumbing strand of trivia. Yes, List of films featuring crossword puzzles is comparable in terms of uselessness and potential lengthiness.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why could we not limit the list to what has been noted in reliable sources? For example, I wrote list of films featuring surveillance, and it is mainly based on lists like what I showed above. The difference between this topic and crossword puzzles is that there were no independent lists about the latter. If there were, we would have an article. It's not based on the perceived silliness of the topic but if the outside world has made such lists where Wikipedia can follow suit. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TTN's argument. TV shows and movies are full of made up films, restaurants, town names, theme parks, etc. This is because sitcoms, cartoons, movies, etc. are fictional. Endless lists of every category of made up thing found in movies or sitcoms is certainly not a worthwhile endeavor. As this list clearly shows, you wind up with something extremely long and unedifying.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Anderson (comedian)[edit]

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

Not a notable comedian. None of her work is particularly notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantive coverage in an unusual range of sources (The Star Tribune [10]; the international news agency Mathaba [11]; a Duke University Press book [12]) = passes WP:GNG. -Arxiloxos (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as noted by Arxiloxos. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Kimani Gray[edit]

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

Not enough evidence of this shooting meeting WP:EVENT. While it did lead to four days of protest in Gray's neighborhood, after it subsided, practically all coverage of this shooting stopped completely. It only affected a small section of the city and had little to no impact on society. There is no high profile investigation or trial for the officers involved (like the Sean Bell shooting incident), no coverage of Gray's family filing a lawsuit or taking other judicial actions against the city (like the Shooting of Amadou Diallo), no references in any music, film, etc. (like the Death of Yusef Hawkins), and no national media frenzy (like Trayvon Martin or Rodney King). Those cases continued to receive coverage and discussion years after they happened. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2013 already has an entry for this shooting that is sufficient enough to cover it.

Added for IP [13] NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Murders like this happen in NYC often, and this is a barely notable murder that was briefly made famous only because it sparked a small protest (see WP:NOTNEWS; this seems like something that one would read in a newspaper). Why is this particular murder more notable than the others? Epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has not reached the level of notice to warrant an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EGain Corporation[edit]

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

I'm not confident that this passes the WP:CORPDEPTH needed to pass GNG. My reasons being sources such as [[14]] which is used to say they won a value award, my other concern being that when I google the corp I get one hit [[15]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over 1,000 hits on Newsbank. Good news? It seems not. First filter down to newspapers to eliminate press releases and the like. Then there are 163 hits. Eliminate the stock market quotes and we have about 30 stories that mention eGain. There are two or three which rise to the level of passing mention, mostly of the form "...these include companies such as eGain, which [verb jargon nouns]...". The others are of the form "X, who works for eGain, said blah blah blah about etc." Therefore fails WP:CORP.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no references to establish notability. Just because there's a Reuters, Hoovers or WSJ page about them doesn't indicate they are sufficiently notable. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alf's excellent analysis. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article for non notable subject. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alf's detailed assessment. Finnegas (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Russia 2015[edit]

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

Looks like advertising. No independent sources, with two of the four given sources dead. The Banner talk 22:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

week keep Even thought this article should be deleted as of above my gut feeling says that we should wait till after the pageant is held to start talking delete--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Recreate in November when there's concrete sources, Fails CRYSTAL. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt until 15 March 2015 Writing articles in future tense leads to the sentence in Miss Russia 2014, "Elmira Abdrazakova of Mezhdurechensk will crown her successor" even though such crowning (if it occurred) took place in the past. An encyclopedia is not a bulletin board to post info about future events. Applicable policies are WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Jason Momoa. slakr^\ talk / 05:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Road to Paloma[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Independent reliable sources do not indicate that principle photography has begun. As of 2012, it had a late 2013 release date. Now it's mid 2015 with no confirmation of principle photography. Prod removal states "It has been filming", but no sources indicate this to be the case. SummerPhD (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jason Momoa#Career per WP:TOOSOON.--Laun chba ller 13:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now as per above. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple articles out now which discuss this movie's release date in July of this year. When I have more time, I will revise the article. HubcapD (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Financial[edit]

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

Article contains no references and the only external link is to the company's website. No indication of notability; cannot find any mentions in reliable sources to indicate its notability. It was previously PRODed but that was vetoed by the author. BethNaught (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That might be my personal opinion but if the business has a website like they do then they are quite notable to me.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. No WP:RS sources. A Google search turned large numbers of promotional hits but nothing that passes RS. I had previously put a PROD tag on it but it was removed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:CORP, finding no mention in reliable sources. I was going to take it to AfD myself but somehow forgot, after it was suggested at WT:CP. The article originally was more close to a hoax as its contents were copied from the FXCM article, by merely replacing "FXCM" by "Shivani Financial" (the few lines left still are copied from FXCM). -- SMS ^Talk 09:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is about forex in pakistan with white label business and in Pakistan there are lots of forex scams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.120.133 (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — 182.178.120.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This article is general notability for forex users in Pakistan for knowing the company with white label business. -Aftab222000 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)— Aftab222000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: Aftab222000 is article creator. The article is likely a recreation of Shivani Financial Forex Trading Consultancy, which was deleted as promotional. BethNaught (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Dear BethNaught References added kindly check.-Aftab222000 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources seem to me to establish notability. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good... -Aftab222000 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to be found, only promotional and social media links. No evidence of notability. Bgwhite (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I like that content very much because I am forex user in Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.106.119 (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — 182.178.106.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: per SMS's reasoning. Parabolooidal (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I like this article please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.192.186 (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC) — 39.48.192.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sock puppetry I don't want to accuse anyone specifically, but there appears to be some evidence of potential sock puppetry going on here. This is a very serious offense against Wikipedia rules. I would encourage anyone commenting on this discussion to ensure that they are familiar, and in compliance with, the rules on this subject. Please click on the link if you are in any way uncertain and or drop me a line on my talk page. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- 4,800 results and most of them are social media sites. OccultZone (Talk) 03:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This article is very popular in Pakistan and notable for Pakistani peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.111.142 (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie West[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements for porn actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO if not WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the poorly-sourced BLP.—S Marshall T/C 14:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Lachowski[edit]

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

Fails WP:N; doesn't have the coverage. The references are mostly agency profiles and his homepage; Google News turns up only two hits - one website doing a slideshow of models when they were babies and the other just a photo shoot credit. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor added several new references, none of which provides significant coverage. For example, the editor referenced an Armani PR piece and UK Telegraph article but omitted links that show this subject is in both cases just a listed name. Another case is the "Carbon Copy" link, which is simply a reprinted editorial without analysis. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep currently ranked #25 at models.com for male models doing commercial work [16], independent sources include NY Magazine profile [17]. Having difficulties finding other sources but possibly because there's so much junk about him online. Also note that google news no longer finds news older than 30 days so a lack of hits there isn't necessarily indicative. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found an interview from NY magazine: [18] Amethyst1234 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Calliopejen1 and the few reliable sources noted; one of the top in the world currently in his field. Google News archive is still down. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drum biking[edit]

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

Insufficient sources exist to meet notability minimum. Best source is a very short Q&A at boston.com. Other than that, it's all WP:SPS, like blogs, flickr, and forums. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence that this is a significant phenomenon. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable nonsense. Pretty much restricted to Boston, and even then, it's mostly unreliable sources. The idea itself is also stupid, although that doesn't affect notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pilz (company)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no third-party sources. What looks like a third-party source, "The Best of German Engineering", is acually written by the lobby organization VDMA, the German Engineering Federation, of which Pilz is a member. I looked for third-party coverage and came up with no more than a few passing mentions, though lots of false positives make a thorough search difficult. Huon (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several third party sources concerning the company Pilz GmbH & Co. KG. It's a little bit difficlut so search because "Pilz" means also fungus in German . So I've found the following: Google News: https://www.google.com/search?q=Pilz+GmbH%22&tbm=bks#q=%22Pilz+GmbH%22&tbm=nws Google Books: https://www.google.com/search?q=Pilz+GmbH"&tbm=bks#q=%22Pilz+GmbH%22&start=20&tbm=bks Could you please have a look on those sources. I'll add them afterwards. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safety-Hero (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I appreciate the nominator's concerns, and this is a hard one to search, especially for English-language results. HighBeam has more than 150 hits for <Pilz automation> [19] and while these seem to be largely routine coverage, the volume and worldwide scope of the mentions seem to me to indicate a notable company. I note that some promotional text in the article has recently been addressed by editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well established company that is noteworthy. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there is enough to substantiate the notability of the company itself but not each of the company's products. Stalwart111 06:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Walker (pop-rock musician)[edit]

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

does not meet WP:MUSICBIO Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 09:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 09:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quick google search gives me no sources to prove nobility under WP:GNG--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. I agree with the above – Google searches are no help in finding reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Catalogue of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Zwicky 32[edit]

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

I cannot find any references to support this and I Zwicky 23. I am moving this to an AfD to get more eyes on this and [I Zwicky 23]]. Hopefully, we can resolve this quickly. Thanks... reddogsix (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 09:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or maybe merge, looks real to me. Friday (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's real. --Old Time Music Fan (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sure is real, but sure is not notable either; see WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Catalogue of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies, per WP:Wikipedia is not a catalog of every object in the universe. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Clear consensus that WP:NFF holds sway. But, note to "Jim"; thank you for your contribution. All users of the encyclopedia are encouraged to participate in these types of debates, and your comments are appreciated. You might want to consider creating an account. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grimsby (film)[edit]

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

per WP:NFF, filming has not yet begun and there is not exceptional coverage BOVINEBOY2008 01:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, plenty of sources already, more growing by the day and shooting scheduled within the next few months. You didn't attempt to nominate this page at first, it was only when I quizzed your redirection.Footballgy (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the excellent guidance at WP:NFF which says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." Sources state that filming will begin summer 2014. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 10:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's WP:TOOSOON. Koala15 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP I'm not exactly a editor here, but a reader and after reading about this in the Grimsby Telegraph I came across this page, Im not overly sure how it works and I'm not going to pretend for a second I know anything about Wikipedia's policies but I'd like to see this article remain as I'd like to keep in touch with a film that will mean a lot to our Town. Thankyou, Jim 86.21.200.23 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. It looks like, since filming has not begun, the policy is that the article can't be in mainspace. But could it be moved to the new /draft space, instead? Or put into Articles For Creation process some other way. Assuming that the movie does proceed, it would be better to credit the original editors of the article properly in the edit history, and it can be drafted and ready to go into mainspace when the criteria for mainspace are met. --do ncr am 23:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either would be fine with me. I would move it to Draft space over AFC. BOVINEBOY2008 23:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think that would be nicer to the well-meaning creator(s) of the article. --do ncr am 22:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with move (without redirect) to /Draft space, per question and discussion just above, with edit summary pointing to the /draft article. I think that's how to "vote" for the move, which technically involves a deletion of the mainspace article. And which is nicer to persons concerned with this topic already. --do ncr am 22:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Possibly userify, so that it can be re-uploaded when it is actually nearing release. WP:CRYSTAL applies to pipedreams, buit this appears to have a little substance, if one can believe the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HandyGames[edit]

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

Delete: Article relies heavily on unverifiable sources of information as well as first party and self published information. The article also fails to establish WP:Notability and appears to be highly WP:Promotional. BlitzGreg (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. The article is close to being a blatant promotion for the company at the moment. However, they've recently been profiled in-depth in Fränkische Nachrichten and their recent HandyGames Charity Day also receoved a write up in the Main Post. An article this week in Finanzen.ch profiles the company calling it the "industry-leading games developer and publisher". All this is in the last two weeks, so I fully expect there are enough decent, reliable news sources to create a useful Wikipedia profile. Sionk (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current ones that you cleaned up are still just bare links though, 7-22, they are all just base links to the website, those are not even close to citations. BlitzGreg (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying. I haven't cleaned-up the article (yet). Sionk (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, if you check the edit log it was someone else, but the issue still remains. BlitzGreg (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The need for clean up, or bare urls versus complete citation templates, are not grounds for deletion though. -- ferret (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal for deletion is the result of the content appearing at best highly WP:Promotional and also failing WP:GNG. BlitzGreg (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the company and its games have received coverage in reliable independent sources. Awards. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage in several RSes (e.g. IGN, GameIndustry.biz, etc.). Multiple third party RSes = meets GNG. -Thibbs (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Obviously, if the film actually goes ahead, there will need to be an article. At the moment, though, policy-based consensus says there doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarzan (2016 film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, film has not entered main production and has not received exceptional coverage thus it is too soon for a stand-alone article BOVINEBOY2008 00:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILM as independent reliable sources do not confirm that principle photography has begun. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect - Filming is to begin soon sources say, so keep it, I'll make it more better. Otherwise redirect it to David Yates or Tarzan until the filming commenced, the redirect edit will be "undone" when production starts. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 03:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete: Multiple sources all in the film business is to be expected, since it hasn't fully started yet. With filming about to start, it'll just spring right back up anyway, so we'll keep the facts. What's there now is fine, just keep an eye on it so it doesn't end up violating WP:CRYSTAL. Completely forgot about WP:TOOSOON, it's definitely that. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails CRYSTAL and NFILM, as SummerPHD said. Furthermore, films of this scale aren't always guaranteed, with 2012's Paradise Lost a prime example. Rusted AutoParts 04:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF as filming has not yet begun. It is WP:TOOSOON. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article will be re-created in a few months, I really don't see the need to delete it now. Gloss • talk 06:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The article will be re-created in a few months, at the right time, if and only if filming commences on schedule, Gloss. Are you aware of how many highly touted film projects have collapsed over the years, because of problems with financing collapsing, stars bolting, crappy screenplays and so on? This article should be deleted now and recreated later if filming starts. Ask an administrator to userfy it for you in the interim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree with User talk:Cullen328, because there is not yet a guarantee that this film will be created, we should delete the page in order to avoid misleading anyone who reads it thinking that its production is official. There is still over two years until the film is set to be release, so there is plenty of time to recreate the page when more information is provided. Adamh4 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect the page. It can be restored if the film moves forward. Betty Logan (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and redirect~~ it to character's page, wait for some time, studio has announced the release date for 2016, which they never announced before. So at that point it looks like the film is going to happen now, as the last three casts were added in late 2013 and early 2014, which is also a sign of it's happening. So I would suggest to keep it until studio reschedule the date or collapsed the project. It's highly anticipated project, we should keep it as a redirect to Tarzan in film and other non-print media#Later films, where it will lead the readers. If studio collapsed the project, I'll myself nominate it for deletion. That's all. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Assassin, you can't vote twice. Rusted AutoParts 14:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace per WP:DRAFTS. I think the notability guidelines for future films applies well here. This film had issues in development back in April 2013 as seen here. It looks like the most recent news is Skarsgard being officially confirmed as Tarzan, in just the past few days. This does not necessarily mean that the film is a done deal; Skarsgard could easily bow out, as other actors have done. To use WP:DRAFTS, one would basically move the article to Draft:Tarzan (2016 film). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Erik:, your's a better idea otherwise redirect to Tarzan in film and other non-print media#Later films. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace per Erik. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tarzan in film and other non-print media#Later films per WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robsinden: would you support a move of the page contents to the Draft space, but make the Mainspace page the redirect, until the draft is ready? (Since the Draft space has been created, it is perfect for film articles not yet ready for the mainspace to be worked on, hence my questioning.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Favre1fan93:, I like the Draft idea, except doesn't it have to be constantly edited to make sure that it doesn't get deleted? If there was a way we could guarantee that, then we wouldn't have to worry about WP:TOOSOON OR WP:CRYSTAL. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 00:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't believe that is a requirement Supernerd. It would be similar to a user creating the page in their sandbox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no problem with moving it to draft, it just doesn't belong in mainspace. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. Just trying to save usable content for when it is ready. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Merging is also worth considering. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Adnan[edit]

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

Appears to be insufficiently notable to meet WP:CORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noted designer. Coverage such as here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is notable.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article, such as it is, is about a company. It appears not to meet our notability requirements for companies. The notability of the individual doesn't seem to be relevant to that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The label is named for the designer. So, obviously, they are closely interelated. At some future point it might be worth considering separating out the man from his label, but that is a ways off if ever. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has just been significantly expanded by an editor. Since there are no delete votes at this point, I have not notified any of the editors who have voted so far. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The designer is notable and there are sources available on the internet. The article in its current form could do with better referencing. In addition to the source provided by Candleabracadabra, here is another news article: Will it be FPC or PFDC for Amir Adnan? Mar4d (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Scarlette[edit]

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

Contested prod. I see nothing here that would make her meet WP:BIO. Self-published or unreliable sources and passing mentions, no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fram (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTPROMOTION. Sourced by a raft of primary refs, bloggery, and trivial mentions. Article links to her user-generated Last.fm bio where the pertinent data point is her audience: 9 listeners, ever. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, WP:MUSIC, or WP:CREATIVE at this time. Gong show 17:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added new Cites to TV and online interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresh2Death666 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Last.FM only counts listens by people with Last.FM accounts, whom have their software turned on. The vast majority of the population does NOT use Last.FM, thus a low amount of Last.FM scrobbles doesn't mean anything. She has a large fan base on twitter and other social media platforms. Her official twitter account @SammiScarlette has close to 30,000 followers. Her youtube channel has over 44,000 views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MirrorMirrorLover (talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the demographic of her likely fan base, I would consider 44,000 youtube views to be further evidence of a lack of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Scarlette recorded a released an album in November 2014, that was produced by Hiili Hiilesmaa and featured artist appearances from Sarah Dash of LaBelle and Matt Deis of CKY. The album charted in the daily top 50 new rock releases in the US & UK for the first week it was released. The album also garnered a lot of press, including coverage in non-English speaking markets such Italy, Sweden, Russia, etc. Scarlette also has done work in film and fashion.--Birthofasong (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akhmerovsky Forest[edit]

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

~~Sources available.~~ Sources are not available. Text of the article is based on original research of the map. --Wanderer777 (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. I'm unsure of the reason for deletion. If sources are available then what's the problem? Are you saying it's not notable or simply not a good article? Only the former is a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My misprint. Sources are not available. --Wanderer777 (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Russian version seems to have a few. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where? All sources - maps. --Wanderer777 (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Once again, do you think it's not actually notable? A lack of sources is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? If I look at the map and write about the hill (or house, or stand alone tree)? Height, distance to the nearest village, area? WP:NOR. --Wanderer777 (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, really. Is. it. notable? That is the only criterion for deletion or non-deletion. You still haven't addressed why you think it should be deleted other than having a lack of sources. I'm not saying it is notable. I don't know. But you can't just go on about a lack of sources meaning it isn't notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. Decipher. There are no sources, describing the forest. Sources - zero. So this forest nobody cares. It is not notable. --Wanderer777 (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - That, I'm afraid, is flawed logic and not a valid reason to delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proposer has provided no good reason to delete whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where can I challenge the result of the discussion? --Wanderer777 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't jump the gun. There hasn't been a result! The discussion is still open. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently large forests are always kept here, and this is large enough, and has just enough sources to prove it. They're in russian, but there's nothing wring with that for a Russian subject. WP covers the world. DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Face Off (TV series). Including Frank's name in the article, or retargeting the redirect to point to a subpage which does (if there is one), would be preferred, I'm sure. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ippolito[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. No awards or award nominations from notable awards, not even makeup department head positions in notable movies. The Ackbar makeup was only notable because of the connection to Adam Savage, and is essentially WP:BLP1E. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article on his most recent season on the show. His involvement can be noted there. Independent norability is not established. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Face Off (TV series) where it is sensible that he be listed for his involvements in season one and season five. He has not yet received the coverage to be notable outside that series. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy Close. I'm not saying the articles are perfect, but User:Tbhotch sending them to AfD less than an hour after their creation is entirely inappropriate. I'm speedily closing this as premature and recommend giving it at least a few days. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tears(video game)[edit]

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

Also: Xion (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Luma(video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If Wikipedia:NVIDEOGAMES were a guideline, they'd fail it. All fail WP:GNG, no independent sources from a non-notable company. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding notable company sources soon.--NickLustig (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD process lasts seven days. If in that time it is determined the video games are not notables per the points of WP:GNG the articles will be deleted. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mashai Nakamura[edit]

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

There is much in this article that is factually suspect if not patently false. While Vassilios Katselis did seem to have a sensei named Jiro Nakamura [20], most of what is written about Nakamura in this article is dubious. For instance, he could not have studied under Yamamoto Tamiza Hideya because Yamamoto died in 1798 [21]. The Japanese Wikipedia does not list any Nakamura commanding the 18th Infantry Brigade ja:歩兵第18連隊 and also says the 27th class of the Academy graduated in 1915, not 1919 ja:陸軍士官学校卒業生一覧. And what the article says is his own style of jujitsu, written there "すべての電源" in Japanese, actually doesn't mean "all the power", it means "all the electric sources." Someone was using a bad machine translation. After repeated searches, I cannot find RS that not only prove notability, but also prove he did what the article says he did. Since Jiro Nakamura seems to have existed as a martial arts teacher, this is not completely a hoax, but half of it seems to have been made up. Fails WP:GNG and a lot of other things. Michitaro (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, suspect information, created by single purpose account(s). Unless reliable sources can be added to the article, it should be gotten rid of.SchreiberBike talk 07:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that one of the SPA's that helped create the article has just gone through and deleted all the claims that I tagged as dubious (although the Japanese name for the style is still badly machine translated). Now there are fewer obvious inaccuracies, but since there are still no RS, even the mild claims that remain are unverified. Michitaro (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced biography with nothing to show subject meets WP:MANOTE. Lots of puffery but no supported facts. Papaursa (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability unsuported.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of sources in article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Parchman[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources to verify that this player ever played in the NFL. Sources cite no stats available [22] [23] Flaming Ferrari (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, since it appears he never played in a regular season or postseason game. He played some preseason games [24] but nothing else. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like he played professionally in the CFL with the Calgary Stampeders, and thus actually passes WP:NGRIDIRON. He also played NFL Europe. On top of that, there's some significant coverage from his college playing for his punt returns, including an NCAA record for 106 yards for a touchdown. Therefore the subject passes WP:GNG. So I see two separate notability measures achieved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if he actually played in the CFL, which establishes the passing of WP:NGRIDIRON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep - If we can find out that he played in the CFL. So far, I need to look through some sources to make sure. Zappa O Mati 23:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This is coming down to verifying the assertions of notability. Yes, the article says he's been on various teams or done various things, but if the article's assertions of notability that's he's actually played do not adhere to the verifiability policy, keep arguments based on the supposition that the assertions are right (but can't be verified to be right) aren't helpful to closing this based on policy. --slakr^\ talk / 04:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jemuel Apelar[edit]

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

Vanity biography written by the subject. Has no value. The family has written multiple wikipedia articles about themselves, none of which are substantive Arlingtonma1 (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Starr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Previously deleted uncontroversially. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the poorly-sourced BLP. Also, salt the title, to ensure the previous unanimous deletion discussion is enforced.—S Marshall T/C
- Salting is used to prevent the recreation of articles which have already been repeatedly recreated so many times that they have become a disturbance. This is only the article's second AfD, salting it is completely unnecessary. It's recreation isn't even the same as the one which was previously deleted via AfD. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just trying to keep my watchlist shorter. But okay, onto the watchlist it goes.—S Marshall T/C 02:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - awards: 1x won, 7x nominated, number of films: 320 as actress, 2 as director... Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The award win is scene-related, which is excluded by PORNBIO. Porn award nominations no longer count in PORNBIO. And X-number of porn films is not an indicator of notability. That criterion was excluded from PORNBIO years ago. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG as the nominator states. No reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with views expressed by Johnpacklambert & Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep (withdrawn) by request (non-admin closure). Stalwart111 03:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Dennis[edit]

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

~~Contested PROD. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG.~~ JMHamo (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - User has added a reliable source that satisfies WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG now, so this AfD can be closed. JMHamo (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Albury[edit]

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

I really don't see anything notable about this. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 00:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRIME and WP:GNG--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fourteen murders (if this is established) is a significant serial killer. Given the alleged events occured between 1970-1982 I am not surprised that there is little available on the internet, hence claims of failing GNG. A visit to a library would unearth plenty of source material, I am sure. A Trove search reveals some likely sources for a start -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with user Mattinbgn. significant serial killer. but the article itself needs a shape-up.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The recent reasonably detailed newspaper articles would seem to meet "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role" part of WP:PERP. As stated above, further coverage is limited by the lack of internet sources from this period.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Plenty enough sources have been found to support notability. (non-admin closure) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Race (video game)[edit]

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

This is a borderline case, but I think it falls to the delete side. The article itself is just about content-free. The one included source is a very trivial mention that essentially says the game is canceled and nothing else. I looked around for some other sources, and the only real details I've found is that the game was to be an episodic comedic game about working in an office. There's nothing else out there as far as I can tell, and that's just not enough to pass WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Candleabracadabra asked for my thoughts on this article, so I thought I'd share them here. I'm seeing a few sources that could be added to the article and that would satisfy the requirements of the GNG: Wired, MTV, 1UP.com. IGN has a page on it, albeit one without a byline. At worst, I'd say merge it, but I don't see a really good merge target: Category:Cancelled PlayStation 3 games exists, but there's no corresponding list article. 28bytes (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cancelled video games are against higher standards than most games. Look at StarCraft: Ghost, Star Wars 1313 or Armada of the Damned for an example of which type of coverage a cancelled game should receive to be considered notable enough to have an article. However, I will do a thorough research to see what I can find before weighing on whether to delete this or not. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 07:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I got this: IGN, IGN (thanks 28bytes). The MTV article is amazing, since it covers a lot of info useful for the article. I also found these: Ripten, Animation Rowld Network, The Escapist and Eurogamer. So, this is a Keep. — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 07:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per 28bytes and ΛΧΣ. Enough reliable sources have been found to establish this topic's notability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]