< 15 July	17 July >

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew W. Scott[edit]

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

Lack of notability GrogBoggoth (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC) What I'm seeing here is a couple of defunct web sites, a biography that describes an unremarkable path to chartered accountancy and a bunch of weasel words ("it is rumored that Scott has won over $15 million playing Blackjack in over 100 casinos around the world."). Indeed, the whole biography looks very much like it was penned by its subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrogBoggoth (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails WP:BIO and seems like self-promotion. Many assertions have no references. Out of 7 references, 1 has no link, 2 links are broken, 1 is an interview that includes the subject as one of the interviewees, and 3 are from a less than authoritative site that includes cell phone pictures of letters and articles which do little to corroborate the story other than to say that the subject had conflict with one casino at one time and obtained as much media as possible.--Rpclod (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a vanity entry. No sign of acual notability StuartDouglas (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I am Andrew Scott, the subject of this page, currently holidaying in Thailand hence the Thai IP address. I realise it says above that no further edits should be made to this page and not to modify it, and that subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). But now that the page has been deleted I can't put this in the article's talk page and I am most certainly not going to initiate a deletion review, so forgive me for adding this comment to the archive of the discussion. I just want to say thank you for deleting this page! I am more than happy that it has gone, my days as a blackjack player are long behind me and this Wikipedia article continued to define me as such, hampering some of my current business activities. I had a business meeting regarding a proposal coming up in 2 days and I was concerned as to the affect of the page on the people I am pitching to, so I came to Wikipedia to re-review the page and was delighted to see it gone. So to "GrogBoggoth", thank you. It's clear the user was created merely to propose the deletion of this article, so it was someone who disliked me no doubt from some perceived injustice from the past and thought they were hurting me by deleting the article. In fact, as I said, I am delighted. Thanks!

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g5, created by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡ[edit]

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

page lacks article title bpage (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Portland Trail Blazers#Team branding. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze the Trail Cat[edit]

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

No secondary sources; highly specific topic that is unlikely to have many of them. Tezero (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent Portland Trailblazers article. This deserves about two sentences ~~at the end of the parent article. Next?~~ in the appropriate section of the parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Portland Trail Blazers. Absent independent sources, fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portland Trail Blazers#Team branding. -- Whpq (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the reference to the mascot buried at the bottom of the "Team branding" section. Looks like the mascot is covered at an appropriate level, so no substantive "merge" of content is required. Accordingly, I am changing my !vote above from "merge" to "redirect." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the coverage of Blaze in the Trailblazer's article is 2 sentences long. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions in Iraqi Kurdistan[edit]

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

Iraqi Kurdistan is part of Iraq. We already have article titled "List of diplomatic missions in Iraq". All diplomatic missions in Kurdistan are also per se located in Iraq, so they are (or should be) in the article "List of diplomatic missions in Iraq". All those missions are accredited to Iraq, not to Kurdistan. Diplomacy is conducted between countries, and no country recognizes Kurdistan as such. Russia also has autonomous republics, but we do not have separate articles about foreign missions in every Russian republic. For example, we do not have article "List of diplomatic missions in Tatarstan", although some missions are indeed located in Tatarstan, but they are all covered in the article "List of diplomatic missions in Russia". Vanjagenije (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This looks more like intending to prepare for a future independent country article. If there were enough missions in a city, although not a capital, for instance Istanbul or New York or similar we could make a list. This list is intending to use WP for a nationalist cause. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any nationalist cause propagandizing going on here. Iraqi Kurdistan operates with a level of autonomy that is unusual. I am not seeing any good reason to delete. Wefihe (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is to be considered for deletion, what about List of diplomatic missions of Iraqi Kurdistan, which relates to representative offices of Iraqi Kurdistan in foreign territories? Also, I might note that this article was created on 31 December 2012, so this is not a recent creation as part of some geopolitical aim under the recent insurgency in Northern Iraq. I'm still undecided personally, as I could consider either way, but it is a unique case in that it is an territory with recognised autonomy from its parent state, and a defined aim of democratic independence - i.e. those seeking independence have not been engaging in conflict with the state from which they seek independence, which to my mind is relatively unusual. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So that we do not have to retread old ground, there are a couple of good RfCs on Kurdistan's autonomy at the talk for the Iraqi Kurdistan page - see here and here — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kurdistan has a specific position, mission here have functions of de facto embassies. Iraqi Kurdistan has its own foreign policy. The purpose of Wikipedia is not the assessment of, whether these facts are positive or not, but to provide to the readers informations which are notable. And the existence of a whole series of foreign missions in Erbil, and significant relationships of Kurdistan with many countries, i tis undoubtedly notable. In the cases of Tatarstan or California nothing similar exists. The article is notable, and there is no reason to delete it. Jan CZ (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan CZ, the only way to prove wp:Notability is through citing reliable independent sources. Article currenlty only cites Kurdistan government official site. Do you have any reliable independet sources to prove that Kurdistan has it's own foreign policy and that Kurdistan has significant relationships with many countries? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, here is many independent sources about Kurdistani foreign policy like this [1] "Political stability, ...have given the KRG the opportunity to pursue an energetic and broad foreign policy. The KRG’s primary body for directing its foreign affairs is the Department of Foreign Relations (DFR)... The DFR’s foremost objectives are to ..improve the Region’s international ties with various governments and international organizations... A total of 26 countries have diplomatic presence in Erbil... Multinational bodies, including the EU, UN, ICRC, Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the Korea International Cooperation Agency also have offices in Kurdistan. This significant diplomatic presence demonstrates the confidence that foreign governments place in the Kurdistan Region. Additionally, the KRG’s presence abroad has also grown significantly since 2007. The KRG currently has representative offices in 14 countries...". About relations with other countries in the same source: "The best example of the Kurdistan Region’s evolving relations with its neighbors is its relationship with Turkey. ...expanding partnership, built upon mutual economic interests, was symbolized by the visit of Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan to the Kurdistan Region in March 2011, the first such visit by a Turkish leader. Increasing trade volumes between Turkey and Kurdistan ($8.4 billion in 2012) empirically demonstrate the importance of this developing relationship... Operating under the “Good Neighbor” strategy, the Kurdistan Region has established strong bilaterial relationships with its neighbors..." Etc. Jan CZ (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless additional deletion rationales are presented. The nomination is entirely based on the converses of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:USEFUL. Anarchangel (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is based on the policy WP:CONTENTFORK. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just as Taiwan is technically part of China and not an independent state (see List of diplomatic missions in Taiwan), just like Iraqi Kurdistan, in all practically it operates as a de facto independent state. The diplomatic missions in these cases function as full-on embassies although they are not technically so as they are primarily involved with the diplomatic relations, citizen consular services, advisories, and all other state department functions (immigration, cultural liaisons, law enforcement, business support) with solely the region their in and the government of that region.--Oakshade (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Sergecross73 per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Universe[edit]

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

Is there any official info on this game's existence?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some rumors, but nothing official. Frmorrison (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ram Gopal Varma. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XES (2014 film)[edit]

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

No evidence main production has begun, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 20:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: XES Korika

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

Redirect for now per TOO SOON. Film title was only announced July 14. When returned (and it likely will be when WP:NFF is met) the title should per WP:NCF simply be XES (film). And looking at the media attention already,[2][3] as soon a filming can be confirmed, this will meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Best for now to redirect title to its director Ram Gopal Varma where policy indicates it can be written of until a separate article is merited. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A merge discussion wouldn't be amiss but there's no consensus for a merge here. Mackensen (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friedman Unit[edit]

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

A barely-noteworthy neologism that's better suited for Wiktionary than here. Has shown no long term usage, and barely no interest outside of left wing blogs. The exception to this rule is that it was considered one of the honorable mentions in a now-defunct Huffington Post blog regarding media phrases, but this is not substantial enough to really constitute notability. Previous closures were no consensus, we seem to be better about sourcing now than we were then. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Previous AfDs for this topic were under a different article title. --Finngall ^talk 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least three books (So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits-- and the President-- Failed on Iraq, Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats, Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won the War in Iraq: The Experts Speak) contain relatively lengthy and detailed sections about the term (not just usages) and "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Friedman. "Barely notable" seems about right. At heart, this is some political invective against Thomas Friedman - not that different from "Tricky Dick" or "Slick Willie", or, even more relevantly, "You forgot Poland". All of those are redirects or disambig links back to the larger topic, which makes sense since the amount of information that could legitimately be said about any of them, as with "Friedman Unit", could fit comfortably into about three sentences. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomas Friedman per Korny O'Near. Notability is not temporary, but neither is it inherited. This seems to be a once-notable critique of Friedman, occasionally extended to other political writers/speakers. Cnilep (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While merging to Thomas Friedman is theoretically possible, it would surely be eliminated over time as an "attack" or something. Though not as notable as Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I believe its a historically relevant neologism in regards to the Iraq War.[4][5]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yew Tee. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Primary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN primary school. Was formerly deleted at AfD, pursuant to a unanimous six-editor delete !vote. But was recreated 2 months later. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yew Tee per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Yew Tee or Primary schools in Singapore per established consensus for non-notable primary schools. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as usual; it's standard practice so there was no need to come here. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as usual; it's standard accepted practice established by clear precedent, so bringing it here is not conducive to the best deployment of users' time or their enthusiasm for the project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Cory[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:PROFESSOR JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just being a teacher is not notable in itself. The second paragraph hints at importance, but it is unsourced. Piguy101 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks David Eppstein for sourcing the second paragraph. I am striking my !vote. Piguy101 (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep—h-index of 57, with his most-cited paper clocking in at 1585 cites and 30 papers with >100 cites. Only 19 Canada Excellence Research Chairs have been awarded thus far, each award comes with a serious amount of money (up to $10M over seven years), and he managed to snag one. The subject of this article runs laps around WP:ACADEMIC. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:PROF#C1 and #C5. In particular the claim by the nominator that there is no indication of notability is false; the CERC is an indication of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete . I don't see enough multiple independent reliable sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the scholar link and you will find 12724 of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Clear keep on basis of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to School District 39 Vancouver. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McBride Annex[edit]

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

NN school that provides education for children grades K-3. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the district, as always. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, Getting repetitive repeating the same answer 20,000 times. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguing that an article should be deleted because it is unsourced is absolutely not an argument supported in policy. Arguing that sources cannot be found is another matter but that is clearly not the case here. It is irrelevant to AFD who's responsibility it is provide citations in the article, it is only relevant that it can be cited. Consequently such arguments have been discounted in this close. SpinningSpark 12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Freude[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced for 4+ years. No indication of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can find plenty of sources that mention him, LA Times, NY Times, Independent UK. His name is also mentioned in numerous books, some in other languages. He was an important part of helping prosecuted Nazi's flee to Argentina. Just because it is unreferenced doesn't mean you can't do a simple Google search! JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If no one bothers to provide the necessary detail for over four years, then the subject cannot be notable. It is not the reader's obligation to perform additional research.--Rpclod (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VERIFIABILITY requires that "All content must be verifiABLE" (emphasis added). It is not bad conduct to find no sources and declare there are none, whether or not there actually are any, but it is bad conduct to declare lack of notability despite the possibility of sources. Furthermore, any assertion that there are none without evidence (i.e. weak sources found, or a link to a search with no sources) is less convincing as a deletion argument. Anarchangel (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. WP:Verifiability requires that the editor ensure the verifiability of content that the editor adds. The page does not appear to define "bad conduct" as you describe.--Rpclod (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (by OP). Nothing in the article is verified. The WP:BURDEN in on the editor who wants to add or remove material. In this case, it would be proper to gut the entire article and then go for a speedy deletion. (In any event, the editor who wished to add the material would have to show verifiability. (Note, the guidance uses the term "must" every so often.)) But I posted this AfD with thoughts that some interested editor would come by and rescue it. – S. Rich (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Close advisors" who are not public figures do not pass WP:POLITICIAN in the absence of solid reliable sourcing. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but this version does not qualify to be kept in its current state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The provided references (specifically the NYT) state that Freude was head of the Argentine intelligence service. That seems to pass notability guidelines, and comes from a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by OP – what references? The article has no references! If someone wants to WP:RESCUE the article, they'd do well to fix it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I added a source in lieu of closing the debate (I would have closed it no consensus). The article is clearly verifiable. Whether it can be expanded is another matter. Mackensen (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep & moved. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Migrants sponsored banking (MSB) system: NRB bank for Bangladesh[edit]

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

I'm unable to understand this article enough to determine if it's notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 18:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "NRB Bank" - plenty of sources [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], notable bank. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Sibold[edit]

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is a poster child for WP:NOTINHERITED.--Rpclod (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Rpclod StuartDouglas (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corey O'Connor[edit]

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

city politician, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that city council membership does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.--Rpclod (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
City councillors do not ordinarily pass WP:POLITICIAN except in major metropolitan "world cities" with populations in the millions, and this article is not well-sourced enough to demonstrate that he qualifies as the "exception to the rule". Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of purely local interest, fails WP:POLITICIAN. I particularly liked the wedding coverage in Pittsburg Magazine. --Bejnar (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pittsburgh has fewer residents than Mesa, Arizona, and I know no one would argue a Mesa City Counil member would be notable for that fact alone without significant GNG coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthy local politician but he fails to pass WP:POLITICIAN and, also, the sources fail to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Pereira de Lima[edit]

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

Contested prod as the creator attempted to find more sources about the player. Whilst some have been found indicating a disciplinary issue, which i do not think is sufficient enough for GNG on its own, the simple fact is that this is a player who has not played a single minute in a fully professional league, nor made a senior international appearance and so fails WP:NFOOTY. Currently, he has played one match in a non-fully pro state league and is on loan at a club where he could not make a fully pro appearance in any case. I have no problem with the article being recreated if the player does anythign to satisfy NFOOTY or does something else worthy of GNG, but at the moment, his disciplinary issues and his loan means this is unlikely and a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Most of the coverage of this player involves incidents of alleged doping and injuring an opponent. If he had played in the Campeonato Gaúcho or made some notable achievements with a senior football team, I might give the coverage more weight. Jogurney (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think we should take a decision about the Gaucho Division status, because LucaG. says that Gaucho championship is professional and he provided some sources.Also he created many pages according to GAUCHO caps and we must take a decision.

Fully Pro:Yes or no? --Lglukgl (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He didn't even played in Campeonato Gaúcho guys, only appeared in one Campeonato Alagoano match (which is pretty much semi-pro). The only fully-pro State Leagues in Brazil are Campeonato Paulista, Campeonato Gaúcho, Campeonato Carioca and Campeonato Paranaense (not so sure about the latter two though). MYS77 ^✉ 23:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be noted that Paulista is the only state league where there is current consensus that it is a fully professional league per WP:FPL, so the above comment is incorrect. Fenix down (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to current guidelines, I agree with the deletion. But I still keep my discussion about the Brazilian state leagues are WP:FPL. Lucas Gaúcho (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saxon Studio International[edit]

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

Advert. Laun chba ller 17:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't an advert and I really don't understand that claim. The article is currently substandard but sources exist with which to improve it, e.g. on GBooks - Klive Walker's Dubwise: Reasoning from the Reggae Underground, David Moskowitz's Caribbean Popular Music, and Robert Beckford's Jesus Dub: Theology, Music and Social Change. Also The Independent. Saxon is one of the most important UK sound systems, confirmed by these sources. --Michig (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not an advert. Saxon is surely notable as a number of notable artists began their careers there. I'm sure it can be improved and would welcome suggestions. John Eden (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Great improvement work by Milowent. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Know What You've Got[edit]

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

WP:NSONG: Notability aside, a song should only have a standalone article when there is enough information to fill a reasonably detailed article (or words to that effect). Laun chba ller 17:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Launchballer. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: OK, you musical heathens, I improved the article, you can now shut down this AfD. AfD shouldn't be a cattle prod for getting someone to improve an article. It may take 5 years or 100 years for every stub article to get expanded, there is no time limit. Having a stub makes it easier to expand, whether I did it in 2014 or my grandson does it in 2099.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't withdraw because Why should I have a User Name? has voted delete. If he could change his vote, I can withdraw.--Laun chba ller 23:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Milowent, who has once again demonstrated why we don't delete stubs just because they are stubby. This one was notable before the improvements and now it's clearer. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article had little content prior to this discussion, but it was clearly improvable as evidenced by User:Milowent's additions. Gongshow talk 04:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

92 Group[edit]

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

Not notable, so far as I can tell. James^x12345 16:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Thanks for the work you guys have put in - I couldn't find anything when I looked, but was clearly looking in the wrong places. James^x12345 08:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Along with other organisations associated with the Conservative Party such as the Cornerstone Group and the No Turning Back group, it was a notable and influential Conservative faction. The article is referenced and has an entry in a political encyclopaedia which I have used.--Britannicus (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A faction which according to sources had membership of around 15% of UK Parliament MPs in the mid 1990s and was influential in the internal convulsions of the governing party. AllyD (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the nomination was withdrawn the nominator User:Jamesx12345 or an Admin can close this as Speedy Keep.--Jersey92 (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Head[edit]

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

No indication that this might meet WP:GNG; only reliable reference is merely a passing mention as part of a cast list. Laun chba ller 16:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:ENT criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Not notable enough to have an article in WP. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY --Jersey92 (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she has potential to achieve notability in the future but her roles thus far are not sufficient to pass WP:NACTOR and, also, the sources fail to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Roche[edit]

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

No indication of notability beyond being a member of Rixton (band), and notability is not inherited. Laun chba ller 16:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Surely a large part of his claim to notability is a role in a major UK soap? That would need some investigation to see if he's notable from that part of his career. At worst this is a redirect to Rixton (band). Having famous parents isn't a reason for an article, but it also isn't a reason to delete one. --Michig (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is indication of his notability beyond being a member of Rixton, namely his acting career. 86.13.222.160 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Everson[edit]

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

The PROD was removed. Hence I'm bringing this here. The subject, a free-lance journalist, blogger, and website editor, fails the inclusion criteria for both biographies in general and authors in particular. There is no evidence whatsoever of significant in-depth coverage of this person. The two "awards" are very minor and local. Despite the recently inflated "references" section, the sources are brief mentions, and/or extremely local, blog entries, search results for blog entries, or pieces written by Everson himself. The sum total of his coverage in the Wake Forest Alumni Magazine was "The wedding party included Zach Everson ('98)". Not that it has a direct bearing on whether or not it should be kept, but this has all the hallmarks of a "paid for" article. It came from the same stable (now blocked) that brought us Matthew Knowles (actor), Barbara Amaya, Tejune Kang, Ron Shimshilashvili (actor), and Alex Munoz. Voceditenore (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a professional resume. I scanned it all the way through and couldn't find anything noteworthy. If he had started a major national blog, that would be something, but what he founded was a local-oriented sub-blog (if that's a term). As a Louisvillian, I also know local people more deserving of an article than Mr. Everson. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable magazine travel writer. Most of his work seems to be about Louisville, and I agree with Stevietheman's local knowledge that he does not seem that he is or every was significant even locally in that city. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:AUTHOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTABILITY --Jersey92 (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wicomico County Public Schools. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school fails WP:ORG. Should be redirected to Wicomico County Public Schools. Jacona (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicomico County Public Schools per nom and per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above--there's a stanrd way of dealingwith this, and it should not be lightly abandoned. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. As we usually do with such schools. Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wicomico County Public Schools and per long-standing precedent (of over 1,000 school redirects) reported at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Disney Channels Worldwide. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Channel (Kuwait)[edit]

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

I strongly doubt if this channel ever exist. No source and all the content are just about programming and their logos. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 14:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The channel exists and has different programming than other Disney channels. However, it should be renamed Disney Channel Middle East.^[1]

^ "TV Channel: Disney Channel Middle East". MAVISE. European Audiovisual Observatory. Retrieved April 17, 2014.

This vote seems like a case of WP:POKEMON to me. Piguy101 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has insufficient context. However, if it gains a few good references and an adequate lead section, I may withdraw my !vote. Piguy101 (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disney Channels Worldwide as Disney Channel Middle East already does Basic autofeed of DC into local languages without any locally-sourced programming. Nate • (chatter) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney Channel (Middle East). Disney Channel broadcasts in all Middle East countries. Binban (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Next time, double-check your redirects. I already clearly mentioned above you that DCME redirects to the DC Worldwide article. We're not going to redirect to a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 22:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Holywell Town F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Per WP:NSEASONS team season articles should only be composed for those teams in top professional leagues. Unfortunately, this team plays considerably lower than could be considered a reasonable threshold by that guideline's criteria. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to merge all the season pages of 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 into a single page which details the fixtures for the club or is this against the rules because the club is not a professional club? Clintoff (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not unfortunately on the grounds that the club play in what is in effect a very minor league in the grand scheme of things. Additionally, there is very little in the way of sourced prose in any of the articles, so an amalgamation of the four articles would be a major WP:NOTSTATS contravention imo. What would be preferable would be the creation of sourced prose (beyond routine match reporting) in the history section of the main club article t outline the key events, ensuring that the article, as far as possible does not fall foul of recentism. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Not notable. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the articles that should be challenged here are the existing season articles such as 2013–14 Holywell Town F.C. season, given they are well sourced, well written, and appear to meet WP:GNG. Trying to delete the article for the upcoming season seems the wrong place to start. Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's WP:TOOSOON.--Jersey92 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not well sourced at all per WP:V as all sources point to the club's own website. There is no indication that this season is being covered in any depth outside of non-routine match reporting. please provide details as to how the article meets GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this individual season can be predicted to be significant enough for a stand alone article, and the team does not play at a high enough level for the season to have inherent notability. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Arab-British Understanding[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and so fails WP:GNG. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no it doesn't. See By the end of the seventies, with an inclination of British policy towards the Arabs, CAABU's image in Whitehall had improved somewhat, and its headquarters had been visited by the foreign secretary. ... CAABU, on the other hand, has been more succesful in gaining media support., The Council for Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU), under the Directorship of Michael Adams, includes MPs, Professors and businessmen. CAABU was founded after the June war to promote understanding., Chief among the pro-Arab organizations is the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU). Its present executive committee of nineteen includes six serving Members of Parliament. In its ranks are distinguished..., Two major factors have helped the Arabs: the events during and after the Yom Kippur war, and the existence of articulate bodies here like the Council for the Advancement of the Arab- British Understanding (caabu)., CAABU has played its part, for over thirty years, in creating a much wider awareness..., etc., etc.. --Soman (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, like you I found lots of passing mentions. But nothing that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" as WP:GNG requires. Or have I missed something? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, those are not passing mentions. They are clear indicators of notability. Nor are these the only results out there. Please go through WP:BEFORE on the steps to be taken before initiating an AfD. --Soman (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - We're not in need of "indicators of notability" (whatever that means) but good sources which directly and in detail address the topic. Is there even one such source? If so, what is it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, plenty. Read above. --Soman (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The very first link provided by Soman covers the CAABU over several pages; well beyond a mere mention. Other links have snippet views, but based on the snippet views, are more than just a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ba Takat Bridge[edit]

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

Appears likely to be a hoax. The only source cited is an 1899 book by a Christopher Polo; I cannot find evidence outside Wikipedia that either the book or even a writer named Christopher Polo exist. The geographical location is given as "28 miles west of Colombo", but Colombo is on the west coast of Sri Lanka, so that would be 28 miles into the ocean. (It is however given as near Karawanella, which is a real location about 35 miles east of Colombo, so there's an outside chance this was just a mistake). And, I cannot find mention of the alleged bridge or anything sounding like it anywhere else. Delirium (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I cannot find anything about the bridge, but the Nittevo (or Nittaewo) are at least an authentic Sri Lankan legend, whose reality—and humanity— has been debated for over a century,[13] and currently attract a great quantity of nonsense in the field of cryptozoology, as a simple Google search shows. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: on closer examination, this must be a hoax. There is a great wealth of detail about the history and beliefs of a people/species whose existence is uncertain, down to the names of their deities. Also, sentences like It is not heard of by the rest of the world because not many survive suggest a hoax. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially for the same reasons cited by Hasirpad and the nominator. I can find no evidence of these particular tales about the Nittaewo or of a Christopher Polo writing about them. The name Christopher Polo may be an homage to Marco Polo's tall tales about Ceylon/Sri Lanka. See The Travels of Marco Polo/Book 3/Chapter 14. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons - I have also undertaken some research and am unable to find any literature by Chistopher Polo on the Nittevo. Dan arndt (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and close, per above. This is entirely a hoax. Reh man 07:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American players of American football of Italian descent[edit]

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

Unsourced list of a non-notable group, fails WP:LISTN. - Mr X 11:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This kind of really detailed and not particularly notable intersection should probably be dealt with by the category system rather than by a list. --Delirium (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on earth would you say that? We are not more lenient with such intersections in categories than we are in lists. See WP:OCAT. postdlf (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - By "dealt with by the category system" I had in mind some kind of functioning category-intersection system, not reifying the intersection. --Delirium (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you mean the long requested feature Wikipedia:Category intersections, but not anything the category system does currently? As written, your comment suggested support for creating Category:American players of American football of Italian descent. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "list" of two entries duplicates well-populated section at List of Italian Americans in sports#American football, and awkward, confusing title not useful as a redirect. postdlf (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @Postdlf: This list is obviously a mess, but the question presented is a new one for me, and I would like to understand any applicable policies or guidelines for evaluating and deleting this and similar lists. Apart from the fact that this list has no content and no sources, how is it conceptually different than List of Jewish American sportspeople or List of Filipino American athletes or List of Italian-American Medal of Honor recipients? Is it simply a question of notability of the group per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, or are other policies in play? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by your comment given what I just wrote. List of Italian Americans in sports is a comparable list to List of Jewish American sportspeople. The list under discussion here is just a poor and incomplete duplicate of one section of that list. Notability of the group as a group that a list represents is one way to analyze its merits; see WP:LISTPURP for others. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. Your objection is not that the subject is non-notable or otherwise unsuitable for a list article, merely that it duplicates a sublist of an already existing article? Is that correct? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Basically. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per discussion points between Postdlf and Dirtlawyer immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There appears to be a list of Italian American sports figures already which has a "football" section. No need to create a new article. Bali88 (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. and the previous comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Coleman (politician)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NPOL -- not a statewide office. – S. Rich (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep city of over 800,000 residents and the largest in the region outside of Chicago. His switch to the Libertarian Party itself makes the article quite notable, as it is rare for elected officials to join a smaller party in the U.S.--TM 02:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that Coleman was interviewed Reason Magazine, a national libertarian-minded magazine. I've added the reference to the article.--TM 17:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom, he does not meet NPOL. I could not find anything on him in google news. Notability has nothing to do with how significant or interesting his actions are; it is all about how many reliable secondary sources found his actions interesting. In this case, it is at this point none. Fails WP:GNG. however it is quite possible that this is just WP:TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE as a City Councillor of a large enough city. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the coverage that would be needed to have an article. With under 1 million people, Indianapolis is not of a size we should presume all city councilors are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Switching to the Libertarian Party might have meant increased coverage which would mean he passes GNG. That wasn't the case and the only hits that a search turns up are from blogs and the LP itself. Simply being a former city councillor means he fails GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Elected city councilor of a major American city. His switch of parties adds to newsworthiness and importance to the history of the region. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The position is one of 29 seats on the council. – S. Rich (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As some of the others said, this may be TOOSOON; but currently, does not meet GNG, and I tend to be rather inclusionist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The interview in reason.com has only recently been added. Other contributors to this debate need to be given an opportunity to comment on the effect this source has on notability

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 11:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has some 3rd parties talking about him, so it seems notable enough to keep. Frmorrison (talk)

Delete The sources provided do not indicate that the subject of this AfD are significant. I think we would expect coverage of his party switch to be the subject of national, mainstream papers to pass WP:GNG --Enos733 (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my view the GNG (significant coverage 'addressing the topic directly and in detail') requires more than what is presented here: enough coverage to create a proper -- not long or comprehensive, but proper -- and reliable biography. That's not the case here. And nor should that be surprising for one of many members of the council of a mid-sized city.--Mkativerata (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indianapolis is not a city where a consensus exists to treat all city councillors as inherently notable under WP:POLITICIAN, and this article is not extensively sourced enough to give him the benefit of the doubt per WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree the council is too large, city too small, and coverage not enough for a separate article. An article on the history of the council membership would be much more useful and could incorporate the key data for Coleman and all the other members, though it would be a huge task. Perhaps List of former Indianapolis City-County Council members? [14]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major Mike Russell[edit]

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

Non notable, only has had minor roles Gbawden (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:ENT criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails ENT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (A9). (Non admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MF4: Major Flavours 04 – Mixed, Cut Up & Destroyed by DJ Sir-Vere[edit]

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

Non notable mix album Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:A9 as the DJ Sir-Vere article does not exist. If that fails, delete anyway as non-notable. Adabow (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per below support and the fact that provincial agencies are notable. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sindh Public Service Commission[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Googling the subject only yields its' own website and advertisements for jobs with it. AlanS (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References for the civil service commission for Sindh, a province with 42 million inhabitants, must exist in abundance, but are not necessarily online or in English. I would say the same about any national or provincial government department anywhere. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator failed to do basic homework as with other recent deletions In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above - Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manihari Ghat ferry disaster[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTNEWS IMO, not WP:LASTING - this kind of accident is sadly common and nothing about this event indicates notability Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not agree that the ferry disasters killing over 400 people are common in India or for that matter anywhere else.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a pretty major maritime disaster, worth having an article about. If it's part of a series of similar disasters I wouldn't oppose merging into a central article discussing them, however. --Delirium (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a major event. It appears in a few books, and there seems to be good material to expand it and cover the political aftermaths of the tragedy. --Soman (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs expanding ALOT but hopefully the nom will do just that, Plus per above obviously a major disaster. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An article of a ferry disaster of the same magnitude in the United States wouldn't even be considered for AfD. As a matter of fact, the much less deadlier MV George Prince ferry disaster is extremely notable. Might this be a case of systemic bias?--Oakshade (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if it gets deleted. Instead, it looks a lot like SNOW today. Anarchangel (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search shows it in books. 400 fatality-accident seems notable. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 14:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howard G. Malley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged for notability since Nov 2011, the only claim to fame of Malley is as producer of We are the World. Written like a promotional piece. Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Also, poorly written and with insufficient reference.--Rpclod (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if only because a merge to the We Are the World#Marketing and promotion section of the gigantic We are the World article is counterindicated. This content should not be lost, and there is no other good place to put it. WP:IAR is called for here, for purely expedient reasons. Sourcing and notability concerns have been met already, in the previous AfD, and no new deletion arguments have been brought forward. Anarchangel (talk) 23:10, 20 July 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough and not enough sources to pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 24 July 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makrand sakharam sawant[edit]

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

Strongly suspect this is a hoax - I think this page was moved from User:Makrand Sakharam Sawant. Can't seem to find reliable sources for him Gbawden (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity stunt, not notable. --Soman (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only does it fail WP:GNG but good god what a mess! LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Further, the article is very poorly written.--Rpclod (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:BLPNOTE. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA autobiography with no verifiable claim to notability. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete. Maybe even Speedy Delete. Possible WP:COI in creation. Poor quality article. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should this discussion be closed and the article deleted per WP:SNOW? --Jersey92 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete. No credible notability claim, no WP:RS, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Fury[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable either as a journalist or as a musician. Creator name suggests this is a promotional autobiography. TheLongTone (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Read the article and info hardly rings familiar. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 10:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator and I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason. Non-notable walled garden:

Agree, band is also non-notable & article should be deleted.TheLongTone (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:ENT or WP:AUTHOR criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syafiq Siraj[edit]

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

Fails notability as per WP:FOOTYN, has not played in a fully-professional league. Only reference does not support WP:BLP either. LRD NO (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. LRD NO (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. LRD NO (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Soccer player articles are usually kept if the proper sources are cited. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 10:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article fails notability guidelines set by WP:FOOTYN and GNG. The only source in the reference section makes no proper mention of said player nor notability. LRD NO (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless he played in the S.League, he does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. Soccerway indicates this player has never played for Tampines. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. and the above, fails notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has only played in Prime League which is a reserve league for the fully professional S.League. No evidence of any media coverage. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Yazdan[edit]

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

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

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

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

Keep: Yazdan is notable as he has won several awards and appeared on television a few times for his work. Additionally, the deletion reasons for this article were initially hoax and unsourced BLP, which are both clearly not the case. Piguy101 (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see the discussion on PopeOfRacing's talkpage. Piguy101 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Thanks for thinking I am notable, however I am not a public figure. Yes I saved a little boy from a car that had died of an asthma attack. I was just doing my job and what anyone else would have done. Many doctors save the life of someone. This is not notable, its our job and duty. Many doctors have been on the TV show "The Doctors". In fact, every episode features 6 new doctors and there are about 150 new episodes every year! Thats 900 doctors that go on that TV show yearly. That doesn't make me special at all. Im sure 99% of them do not have a wikipedia about them. I think wikipedia is a great resource for notable, public people etc. Thats not me. Everything I have done is the same as 90% of my other colleagues. Thanks PopeOfRacing (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — PopeOfRacing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: I agree that this doesn't make Yazdan a public or notable figure. I think it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.211.9 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC) — 174.67.211.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: I agree that this is not a public figure— Preceding unsigned comment added by Badluckm3 (talk • contribs) 20:39, May 20, 2014 (UTC) — Badluckm3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: If every doctor that went on the TV show the doctors had a wikipedia, there would be a lot of useless information on wikipedia. It doesn't seem Yazdan is notable enough to have this article so I think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssriley97 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — Ssriley97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete: After reading the article and researching it, this doesn't belong on expedia. I can understand Dr. Oz being on expedia. But no reason for Dr. Yazdan Article to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.193.60.141 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC) ((SPA|107.193.60.141||[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a democracy; it is a consensus. Number of arguments is irrelevant; content of argument is essential. All of the points here seem to say the same thing with little additional opinions, leading me to my next point: I see that all of the users (except for me and User:PopeOfRacing) who have posted here have this page as their only contribution, indicating sock puppetry, a Wikipedia "no-no." I believe that some dubious scheme is going on because of this and the arguments lack true merit. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notable acts, seems like he has done the routine duties of his job.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.99.207 (talk • contribs) 22:18, May 20, 2014 (UTC) — 68.101.99.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I agree with Piguy101... However I'm unsure as what the dubious scheme is though and since I'm new to wiki I don't know what sock puppetry is! PopeOfRacing (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions are always welcomed! See Sock puppetry. To summarize the page: users must only use one account. By using IP's addresses and accounts from the same person is against the Wikipedia policy and may lead to blocking. Sock puppetry is used to give undue weight to discussions as it makes it look like many people support a particular idea or opinion, although it really is one person using multiple accounts. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not belong on wiki. This is not a notable or public figure and although being a hero is great, he was just doing his job (seems like Dr. Yazdan even states that himself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: This AfD was not listed on the day's AfD log when created. It was listed on the 20 May 2014 log by Auric on 15 July 2014‎, but it is better to list the discussion on the current day's log to increase participation.
I am now relisting this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 16, so this should not be closed until after seven full days from this timestamp.
I found this AfD from an ANRFC post. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close? This article hasnt't been nominated correctly as there is no reason for deletion. PopeOfRacing's comments are clearly fake and all these accounts are clearly WP:SPA's. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am NOT a sock puppet and believe that this does not meet WP:BIO criteria. He has (a) acted as any other doctor would and (b) has received some fairly non-notable media exposure and (c) the combination of the two do not warrant any further consideration. Also, the article seems like an advertisement and not WP:NPOV.--Rpclod (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's close this weird discussion now, as JayJay says, and if it comes here again in the future, we may discuss it calmly. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to explain my weird nomination. The article was CSDed and PRODed twice, so I opened a discussion with a keep nomination. I did not realize that there were better ways to discuss this when I did so. Honestly, I have no current opinion if the article should stay or not, but all the socks should be ignored. Piguy101 (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a doctor he does not meet notability requirements; nothing notable about his practice, and nothing at all found at Google Scholar. Appearing on TV a few times is not enough. The spate of news coverage over "saving a boy's life" is BLP1E. I am very suspicious of the spate of SPAs that all came rushing here to get this article deleted, including one who claimed to be the subject; something organized was going on there. But that was two months ago, and ignoring all of them still results in a Delete recommendation. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saritch 308[edit]

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

Non-notable student coursework. No reliable sources, even if you search for its Russian name. Max Semenik (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable prototype that only existed on paper.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...not notable...not even a prototype...a dead end that has been the mock-up stage for years--RAF910 (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Florida–South Carolina football rivalry[edit]

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

Non-notable college football rivalry that fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series as a rivalry, not as a recurring game series. By that GNG standard, it is damn difficult to find significant, in-depth coverage of Florida-South Carolina as a "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:RS. Has anyone ever written an in-depth feature article about the history and significance of the Florida-South Carolina series as a rivalry? Has anyone has ever written a book about the Florida-South Carolina series as a rivalry? Alabama-Tennessee? Florida-Georgia? Auburn-Georgia? Florida-Florida State? Florida-Miami? Clemson-South Carolina? Yes, to all of those. Florida-South Carolina? Never. If the Florida-South Carolina annual series is notable as a "rivalry," then practically every annual series in the Southeastern Conference is a rivalry. When every annual series is a rivalry, then the term "rivalry" has effectively become meaningless. This is not what was intended by WP:NRIVALRY, and is not supported by the precedents of the previous AfDs and talk page discussions of WP:CFB. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even though the involved teams play for universities, not high schools. Every time one competitive team faces another, they are rivals. If they have faced each other more than once, a "rivalry" is involved. The vast majority of these "rivalries" are not notable. I believe that we need some really in-depth coverage in highly reliable sources to conclude that a "rivalry" is notable, as opposed to routine passing mentions in local sources. I am not seeing that here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most importantly, Cullen, there needs to be in-depth coverage of the series as a rivalry, not just as a recurring series. Every major Division I FBS game will have articles written about it the day after it's played; but that does not make the series a "rivalry." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep this, this, and this seem to be RS that discuss these games as a rivalry, although the coverage is barely sufficient. However, I am not an expert on college football, so I may be missing something; is there some feature of these sources that makes them not-reliable? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC) It would appear that I have read multiple sources incorrectly; see below. Changing vote to Delete, since that leaves only one RS that refers to the topic in question. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: In your three linked sources above from the Google News Archive, I cannot find the Florida-South Carolina "rivalry" references in the first and third sources at all -- the first appears to be an article about a murder involving high school rivals in Pahokee, Florida from the Bangor Daily News, and the third is a link to an article about the Florida-Florida State rivalry (with a secondary mention of the Clemson-South Carolina rivalry on the same page) from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The second linked article, from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, does mention a Florida-South Carolina rivalry, but only in the context of a personal rivalry for a South Carolina player from the state of Florida. None of these appear to be significant -- let alone in-depth -- coverage of the Florida-South Carolina series as a rivalry between the two universities. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, you are correct about the first source; it is discussing high-school football, and I was still confused by the high-school/college switch above. The second one, though, seems not to be personal to me; the third paragraph starts of "This is a rivalry game for the [gamecocks]," which seems clear enough. The third article is less direct, but the piece is focused on rivalries, and the first bullet point, second column, mentions this particular one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: The first bullet point in the second column appears to be discussing the Florida-Florida State rivalry. Are you seeing something different? The second source actually says "This is a rivalry game for Florida-native Gamecocks," i.e. the South Carolina Gamecock players from the state of Florida. Florida is a very fertile college football recruiting area, and a handful of Florida kids wind up playing for South Carolina every year. For those Florida natives playing for South Carolina, yeah, it's a personal rivalry because they're playing their home-state university. Not so much for the other 90% of the Gamecocks who are not from Florida. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell, yes, right again. I have changed my vote, as that leaves only one source. As for that one, though; yes, it may be for personal reasons, but the reference still makes it out to be a team rivalry, and I'd rather not second guess the source beyond a point. You can have a rivalry between two teams for personal reasons, can you not? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I think the point of the article was that the game is not a traditional rivalry for the Florida Gators or the South Carolina Gamecocks as teams, but it is a rivalry of sorts for the Florida natives playing for the Gamecocks. Not sure that measures up to what CFB fans and WP:CFB would define as a rivalry between the teams, and certainly not a notable rivalry for purposes of WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the discussion between Vanamonde93 and Dirtlawyer1 has actually provided quite a comprehensive analysis of the sources. I can't see that the sources available substantiate that this is a notable rivalry. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer1. Patriarca12 (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Edge[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite not a hoax, the player did not made his professional debut yet. Matthew_hk t c 11:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Addressing the issues raised by Bearcat, the matter of deletion on the grounds of lack of sources actually in the article is separate from the matter of notability. It is long established at AFD that notability does not depend on what is actually in the article, but on what can be found in any sources whether cited in the article or not. It is my judgement that participants here have successfully argued that sources conferring notabililty exist. On whether this article should be deleted as a BLP violation I am guided by the requirements of WP:BLPPROD. This requires only one reliable source verifying one statement in the article. It does not require that source to be independent. It is surely unarguable that a political party is a reliable source for who its leader is. To be sure establishing notability requires independent sources but notability has been established. Thus, the article gets past the BLPPROD hurdle. Remaining BLP issues can be dealt with by normal editing. I see no benefit to the encyclopaedia in wiping the history of a subject that has been established as notable. It would be a different matter if the article was littered with BLP violating negative claims, but as about everything in the article is referenced to primary sources it is unlikely the subject is going to find anything objectionable in it. SpinningSpark 15:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Serge Brisson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was redirected at a previous AfD and has been recently recreated. A PROD was placed but as I believe the article to be ineligible for PROD, I removed it. Regardless, notability is disputed, so taking this back to AfD. Safiel (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to what's in the article, there is the book here, and he seems to have been involved in a case regarding bilingual signage that received some level of coverage: Telegram, Epoch Times, Telegram, La Releve, National Post. CBC. L'Etoile, Toronto Sun, L'Express, Huffington Post Canada, Le Trait d'Union, Sudbury Star I think there is probably enough in the news articles to reach GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the book mentioned above, there is also this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only real coverage of him is all in regards to the bilingual signage case. This does not make him notable, per WP:ONEEVENT. If the case itself is significant it would warrant it's own entry, but that does not appear to be the case. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, [15] seems to be a reliable source from a reputable publisher providing signficant coverage of him with respect to the 2004 election. Also [16], [17], and a couple news bits that aren't too hard to find. I think that's enough to get past 1E. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I shouldn't have been so lax about policy abbreviations. There are three potentially relevant policies, WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and WP:EVENT. BLP1E does not apply because the subject is not a low-profile individual. BIO1E could apply to someone like this fellow (it doesn't require he be low-profile), but I find that it doesn't apply, since there is more than one signficant event in his biography that we have coverage for. As BIO1E does not actually apply, we don't have to consider refactoring this into an event article and the WP:EVENT rules . --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A person who has been a leader of a duly registered political party, even a minor one, is considered a potentially valid article topic. However, the resulting article must be properly sourced — as written, this article relies entirely on primary sources and fails to cite even one source that can actually confer notability. The existence of possible sourcing improvements is not sufficient, either — in a WP:BLP, the sourcing must be present in the article as written, or else the person is not entitled to be anything more than a redirect to the party they led. In addition, the recreator's rationale ("he isn't the party leader anymore and should therefore be reverted back to a standalone article") doesn't wash — a person with an unreferenced or poorly referenced standalone bio can be redirected to the political party if they ever led it at any time in history, and does not have to be the current leader to merit that treatment. Accordingly, I'd be prepared to revisit this if some sourcing improvements actually find their way into the article by closure — but if all that happens is that the existence of possible sourcing improvements is bruited about here, without any substantive improvement to the article actually happening, then the article must be redirected back to the political party again until somebody is prepared to write and source it properly. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although I'll leave my statement above with respect to notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brisson is a notable individual in and on his own, and should have his own Wiki page. If there are updates, then add them to the page. DrivingForce3 (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply asserting that "Brisson is notable because I say he is" isn't how things work on Wikipedia. As the person who wants the article to exist, the onus is on you to demonstrate, via the use of reliable sources, that he actually passes our notability rules for politicians — and an article cannot be kept if you do not do so adequately. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are ample references above demonstrating his notability. This is beyond "because I say so." Why would I take the time to update an article you're threatening to delete? DrivingForce3 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. There is no significant coverage of him. The bilingual signs case is the only thing that has been covered in the media, but that's not enough to confer significance. West Eddy (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This discussion was closed two days ago as a non-admin closure, with the consensus read as "keep" — however, with three keeps, three deletes and a redirect, there is not actually a clear keep consensus established, and thus it can't be non-adminned. Relisting for further discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat - I closed it as notability was found, The nominator stated "notability is disputed" ... Yet Joe found sources so thus notability was there, So there was a clear consensus, -

(I realized the AFDs been closed but was unaware it was reopened & feel I should explain my reason for closing. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Evergrey, Barely anything to Merge but if anyone wants to merge feel free to do so. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hymns for the Broken[edit]

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

No real indication of notability in the article, the album hasn't even been released yet. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evergrey for now. Coverage for this album is too limited, in my view, to support a standalone article at this time. Gongshow talk 17:17, 4 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Evergrey, not independently notable. Zambelo; talk 04:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robert_Anton_Wilson#Essay_collections. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email to the Universe[edit]

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

Can't find any references to substantiate notability; fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert_Anton_Wilson#Essay_collections. I looked and couldn't find coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. There are some reviews in fringe websites, but none that would be considered usable, so a redirect would be best in this situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above.Charles (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Soffa[edit]

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

Another vanity article, no indication of notability. Even google search doesn't offers any significant for him. Strange link found in Career Section.Ireneshih (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His main claim to notability seems to be designing World Series of Poker bracelets for a year. Apparently, people didn't like the design. Fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently, the people did not like it (which can be included in the article), but that does not rule out the fact that he made WSP bracelet, thus making him somewhat known and notable. --BiH (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Slightly known yes, but you can't WP:INHERIT notability from a one-off bracelet design. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find an independent mention of him; all of the significance appears to be self-promotion in some form. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Loke[edit]

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

Politician whose only substantive claim of notability is serving on a municipal parks board — which is not a claim that satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Although Vancouver is large and internationally famous enough to confer notability on its city councillors, the criterion for city councillors is deliberately restricted to a narrow range of cities as it is — and there's never been any consensus to extend notability to even lower bodies than that (school boards, parks boards, etc.) Furthermore, this article is written as really a thinly-veiled résumé more than anything else — and he hasn't properly established any notability for his prior career with Weeve, either, as that content is sourced entirely to primary sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found quite a few things. First, he is 25 - which is exceptionally young to already hold such an office. 1 He was noted here for that fact. Found some other coverage of him; 2. He was a candidate for the Greens Party in 2009 MLA for Surrey-Newton per 3. I found some coverage of him in his Weeve roll here and here. He is also involved in an notable lawsuit here 6, 7, 8, 9 against Trinity Western University, where it notes he is openly gay and the face of the lawsuit. Actual lawsuit details are here. I don't know the political situation in Canada, but in my own country being openly gay and holding political office adds to notability. In addition he is noted as by Maclean's magazine as someone of note to look out for in their "Future Leaders of Canada" spread. see here. I will work to put this all into the article if I can find time, but anyone else is encouraged to do so first in the meantime. JTdale ^Talk 18:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Additional note Just found an article by the Globe and Mail that says he is Vancouver's youngest ever official; read here. Vancouver city website supports this here. It also notes he is a receipient of the Chief Scout's Award. JTdale ^Talk 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate for an office that the person didn't win doesn't make a person notable — and if the role that a person has held is not sufficiently notable to qualify them for a Wikipedia article by itself, then neither being the youngest person to hold it nor being LGBT boosts their notability either. (If he'd been the first LGBT person ever to hold any elected office in Vancouver, then there might be some added notability on that basis — but the third, fourth, fifth or twentieth LGBT person to hold a political office doesn't get any special notability bump, beyond other holders of that same office, just for being gay.) So he's four city councillors, Svend Robinson, Libby Davies, numerous MLAs and even several other parks board commissioners too late to be considered notable on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I asked. I'm Australian, not Canadian, so I don't know the attitudes there. That said you did ignore the youngest official ever bit, as well as being involved in a moderately notable lawsuit concerning the LGBT community, being noted by two major publications as a "rising star" of politics and co-founder of a moderately successful internet startup. Also, just being a candidate alone is not notable no but it does add to the general notability when supported by several other things. He has also pushed several influential policy changes, such as gender-neutral bathrooms and free wi-fi in parks and beaches. JTdale ^Talk 03:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about differing attitudes between Canada and Australia, but about inclusion rules on Wikipedia — a politician doesn't automatically gain added notability for our purposes just because he happens to be gay. If he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN by virtue of an office that he's held — e.g. if he's just a candidate for political office and not an actual officeholder, or if he serves on a body whose members would not ordinarily be considered notable otherwise (such as a municipal committee or a non-metropolitan city council) — then merely being gay doesn't make him more notable than he would be otherwise. A person who could claim to be the first LGBT person ever elected to a particular body might get over the bar for that, in the same way as a "first woman" or "first person of colour" might, if that historic distinction garnered him substantive media coverage — but a person who was the second, third, fourth or fifteenth LGBT person elected to that body isn't any more inherently notable than his straight colleagues are. And that's a Wikipedia thing, not a Canada vs. Australia thing. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He does however gain notability for being gay if in his country that is notable and therefore led to further media coverage. JTdale ^Talk 07:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NPOL criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentatively keep~~ deleteFailing NPOL is not a valid reason for deletion, while failing BASIC is. Those who vote delete should argue the quality of the new sources provided. I will tentatively vote keep until someone comes to explain the problem of these sources. @Bearcat:@Rpclod:--114.81.255.37 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local media have an obligation to cover local politics, so a local politician getting covered in local media doesn't get him past WP:BASIC if the office itself doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. A local politician who got a lot of coverage in non-local media certainly would get over the bar on that basis, because that would constitute evidence that he'd established notability outside of his own city — but if all of the sources you can provide just constitute local coverage, and thus prove only that the local media are doing their jobs, then NPOL's exclusion of municipal committee members still applies. (Even mayors, who are inherently more notable than parks board members, still have to be the mayor of a city large enough that they have at least a prospect of getting their name into media outside their own city alone before they qualify for articles on Wikipedia.) And as written, most of this article's substantive content is just a bulleted list of boards and committees that he's been on, with no substantive detail about what he did on any of those boards or committees — which makes this a résumé, not a properly encyclopedic article about him. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is an insignificant local politician who gets local coverage, he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Judaism (Israel)[edit]

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

This article describes merely the history of Reform Judaism in Israel, a topic which can be easily added to the Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism. There is no distinct philosophy or theology (or even "Rite", which is anyhow quite an irrelevant concept in "denominational" Jewish matters; rites are practices within Orthodoxy etc., and can be easily modified) behind this term, it is merely a WUPJ affiliate. In Hebrew Wikipedia, we have no separate article for it, and just cite the Israeli Movement as the local branch of Reform/Liberal Judaism, which it is. I've noticed there's a horrible mess concerning that field round here. The subject is treated as if every local affiliate is a distinct Protestant church – it is not, and the differences between Orthodox/Reform etc. are grounded in theoretical approaches dating back to 19th century Germany. In addition, of course, there are no citations, and I couldn't find any source treating the subject as a distinct religious group and not merely a branch. I would have suggested a merge with the Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism, but I find it superfluous. A deletion would be best. מהמברטה (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Reform Judaism, which is where this originated. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Progressive Judaism is an umbrella term for two denominations that have their own well-developed articles, and has little notability in its own right. Debresser (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see [18] for an idea which may apply here too. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RoySmith. In this matter, the problem of having two "denominations" as in Britain does not face us. Therefore, it's unnecessary here. The "Progressive Judaism" of Israel and its "congregational arm" are indistinguishable, they're one and the same.AddMore (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the Israeli version of Progressive Judaism is unique. There were serious discussions explaining this years ago, see:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism/Archive 1#Splitting off Israeli Progressive Judaism into its own article
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism/Assessment and more like this.
It also seems that many of the votes in opposition to this topic are just expressions of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT while not really researching what this topic is about and what is going on here in more depth. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read those discussions before I began my current rampage. I don't argue that the Israeli movement deserves its own article, and it already exists. What I'm disputing is the need for a separate article for what it believes. It's belief system is based on something developed in 1830's Germany, via the influences of American and British thinkers. The people who wrote these articles stressed congregational matters, not religious ones. I doubt, from reading their comments, that they understood what separates Reform/Liberal from Conservative from Orthodox, not as "denominational" levels but in theology, philosophy, etc. There is such a thing as "Reform/Liberal Judaism", which is quite a definitive belief system. There is no such thing as a unique "Progressive Judaism" in Israel, which has any serious unique ideas of its own. German Liberal Rabbis arrived in the 1930s (that should be in the history section of the IMPJ) and all that, but they didn't create a new religious worldview. Abraham Geiger, his associates and their followers (Kaufmann Kohler in the U.S., Claude Montefiore in UK, both "Geigerists") did.AddMore (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: @AddMore: aka @מהמברטה: it is unfathomable how you can admit to your "current rampage" as defining what you are trying to do here with this AfD and expect to be taken seriously. In addition to that you admit that in the middle of this complex AfD you changed your user name from "User מהמברטה (talk · contribs)" to "User AddMore (talk · contribs)" is also problematic because it creates confusion, or worse (just how many user names do you have and have you changed to?) and should be noted by the closing admin as such. Kindly stop your self-admitted "rampaging" and withdraw your nomination in order to regain a semblance of credibility on what is after all a very sensitive and even controversial topic. That you nominated two such articles that were originally worked out years ago after months of dialogue and co-editing, by editors who have long left WP and are not in a position to defend themselves, also does not help. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AddMore. WP:GNG exists to establish reliable sources to pull content for articles from, that is clearly done here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. However, the suggestion of turning into a dab page looks like a possible way forward; that, however, is clearly not a job for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Judaism (United Kingdom)[edit]

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

Exactly the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Judaism (Israel). A pure synthesis which means absolutely nothing. The parts relating to the relations between Reforma and Liberal Judaism in the UK can be merged into both articles. מהמברטה (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content into Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism (United Kingdom). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with User:Malik Shabazz - merge into Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism (United Kingdom). --Jersey92 (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Progressive Judaism is an umbrella term for two denominations that have their own well-developed articles, and has little notability in its own right. Debresser (talk)
Process suggestion. I've tried to close this several times, but can't bring myself to hit the submit button. The problem here is that there seems to be clear consensus that a stand-alone article under this title should not exist, but I don't know how to implement Merge into <two different places>. My suggestion is to turn this into a dab page, with Liberal Judaism and Reform Judaism (United Kingdom) as the two entries. This would leave the edit history intact, so anybody who wanted to mine the existing text for material to merge into one or the other of those targets could do so. I'm not sure that's entirely satisfactory, so I'll just toss that out as a suggestion for discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, note that I'm the original nominator, I changed my username). I don't mind, but neither do I see a pressing concern for maintaining the edit history. There is very little valuable info in this article, and it could easily be added in a short paragraph at the two parent articles (which are filled to the brim with inconsequential details as it is; they barely cover the subject, and rather look like a compilation of press releases on various topics). There are two sub-sections titled "Reform J." and "Liberal J.", which are just leads to the respective ones, and a bit about rapprochement. The problem with all these "Progressive Judaism (X)" articles is the mess they created. There is a large Jewish current which espouses certain doctrines; it emerged in 1830s Germany, led by Abraham Geiger and his associates, and spread in various forms across the world, especially to the United States. We might call it Reform/Liberal/etc., but it's the same one. Until the 1980s, the World Union for Progressive Judaism composed solely those who shared this philosophy, and then Reconstructionist Judaism - something entirely different - joined the WUPJ. [BTW: British Reform J. lacked any serious ideological bedrock until the appearance of British Liberal J.; they believe in virtually the same things - progressive revelation and so forth - but Reform are more traditional in practice. That's all]. AddMore (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make into disambiguation page per RoySmith's suggestion. --Bejnar (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the UK version of Progressive Judaism is unique. There were serious discussions explaining this years ago, see:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism/Archive 1#Consolidating coverage of UK progressive Judaism
Talk:Progressive Judaism (United Kingdom)#Progressive Judaism (United Kingdom)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Progressive Judaism/Assessment and more like this.
It also seems that many of the votes in opposition to this topic are just expressions of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT while not really researching what this topic is about and what is going on here in more depth. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read those discussions before I began my current rampage. I don't argue that the Israeli movement deserves its own article, and it already exists. What I'm disputing is the need for a separate article for what it believes. It's belief system is based on something developed in 1830's Germany, via the influences of American and British thinkers. The people who wrote these articles stressed congregational matters, not religious ones. I doubt, from reading their comments, that they understood what separates Reform/Liberal from Conservative from Orthodox, not as "denominational" levels but in theology, philosophy, etc. There is such a thing as "Reform/Liberal Judaism", which is quite a definitive belief system. There is no such thing as a unique "Progressive Judaism" in Israel, which has any serious unique ideas of its own. German Liberal Rabbis arrived in the 1930s (that should be in the history section of the IMPJ) and all that, but they didn't create a new religious worldview. Abraham Geiger, his associates and their followers (Kaufmann Kohler in the U.S., Claude Montefiore in UK, both "Geigerists") did.AddMore (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: @AddMore: aka @מהמברטה: it is unfathomable how you can admit to your "current rampage" as defining what you are trying to do here with this AfD and expect to be taken seriously. In addition to that you admit that in the middle of this complex AfD you changed your user name from "User מהמברטה (talk · contribs)" to "User AddMore (talk · contribs)" is also problematic because it creates confusion, or worse (just how many user names do you have and have you changed to?) and should be noted by the closing admin as such. Kindly stop your self-admitted "rampaging" and withdraw your nomination in order to regain a semblance of credibility on what is after all a very sensitive and even controversial topic. That you nominated two such articles that were originally worked out years ago after months of dialogue and co-editing, by editors who have long left WP and are not in a position to defend themselves, also does not help. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hank the Cowdog. With a redirect being essentially the same as a deletion, I chose to redirect it per Tokyogirl79. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Case of the Missing Bird Dog[edit]

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

I don't think that this article meets WP:Notability or WP:Reliable sources. It also does not have any meaningful content. If this article is deleted, I will probably nominate other Hank the Cowdog book that don't meet notability requirements. Feitlebaum (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with above comments.--Rpclod (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hank the Cowdog. There's not really any individual notability, but it would be a valid redirect to the series page. I think that it would probably just be better to WP:BOLDly redirect the other books to the series page as well, rather than take them all through AfD. Leaving the article history behind might be helpful in case any of them do pass notability guidelines in the future and it's usually fairly rare that anyone un-redirects an article enough times to really make an AfD necessary in most cases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dubens[edit]

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

Non-notable subject created by new editor. Ireneshih (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the article is a mess, he does appear to have some notability. Deb (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles about him in The Sunday Times (not free), The Independent, Financial Times and London Evening Standard satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Cities Marketing[edit]

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

No WP:NOTABILITY, searches on the subject [1] do not produce independent, reliable sources. The article is plagued by WP:COI editing, (see history), and it is written like a vanity piece, with this revision done by a potentially WP:COI editor saying things in first person, and the Current Revision including advertising language, like "ECM is helping cities to broaden their international tourism marketing contacts. An example for this work is the "Win with the Lion“ project run in Lviv, Ukraine.", and contains zero sources, due to the lack of independent sources as stated above. Jh1234l (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV - "Mentioned on ETC's website..." (emphasis added). Bearian (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find only passing mentions. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Selberg[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Former NASCAR crew chief, but not apparently very accomplished in that role. Not notable at all in his other roles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG with the only source being a link to his unimpressive record as a crew chief (1 lifetime top 10 finish over 20 years ago).204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas and Mustafa Galadari[edit]

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

Non notable, written like an advert. No independent sources found. Only showing their relative business and no claim of notability. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the copyright violation has gone and the promotion has been toned down, but I agree with nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self promotion with lack of references.--Rpclod (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local businesspeople, no evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given the history, I'm tempted to salt this, but will restrain myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jetabroad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another vanity article, no indication of notability. Ireneshih (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete looks like an advert lacking coverage outside travel media. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:CORP.--Rpclod (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jetabroad is mentioned in the list of top-25 travel websites, meaning that it is used widely. As such, the subject-matter passes WP:N. The Sydney Morning Herald speaks of Jetabroad as being among the "best comparison sites", thus satisfying WP:RS. The articles about analogous travel websites, such as Travelocity and Orbitz have a similar (if not lesser) amount of references as this one, yet they stand. In light of these facts, I support their retention. I hope that this comment is helpful. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Thibault[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a writer, which makes no substantive claim of notability that would pass WP:AUTHOR. Titles were published almost exclusively by print-on-demand services. Almost a word for word translation of his article at fr:Vincent Thibault, which doesn't actually make a stronger claim of notability or source it any better (and hence should probably be considered for deletion even there) — and given the writer's interest in predominantly Japanese cultural themes, I have reason to suspect that User:Daisuke.masaru, the creator of both the English and French articles, is actually the subject himself. Delete unless real sourcing can be added to properly verify his notability. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing only to the subjects website is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:AUTHOR, writing books is insufficient by itself for notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia Oy[edit]

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

No indication of importance nor it has RS included. BiH (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BiH, would you mind explaining how the Finnish-language sources are not reliable sources? I don't read Finnish, but I assume that you do. The article has several Finnish-language references, including an article in Helsingin Sanomat a major Finnish newspaper. --Hegvald (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Finnish, and the references seem to check out, albeit the quotes are somewhat poorly worded and skewed. I'll try to fix them when I have the time. Anyway, I don't see any reason for this article's deletion. --Aapokiiso (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally, I'd go along with the nom, but in this case, the sources seem to show that this start-up has gotten significant media attention. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator has not given any real rationale for deletion (handwaving references to policies are useless on their own) and has ignored a request for clarification. As I see it, it is pointless to keep this nomination open, as there is no basis for a discussion here. --Hegvald (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exotica (book)[edit]

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

Non-notable book; fails WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject fails all five criteria of WP:BKCRIT due to lack of available sources.- Mr X 14:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a bit of searching and found several reviews. I also see where the book is extensively used as a source and quoted in some academic/scholarly work ([19], [20]) and is a recommended read for at least one college course. It's light, but it's enough to help show notability. I have a very, very strong suspicion that there is more out there, just that it'll take a while to find since the book was published before the Internet was really a thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable enough with all of the reviews to be kept. Frmorrison (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Giant Bomb. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Davis (video game journalist)[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources that aren't about his death wirenote (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per coverage not about his death ([21], [22], [23], [24]), copious mentions in other articles (arguably not useful as sources but do prove notability), as well as the relativity large coverage of his death. Sam Walton (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Be aware - we typically don't have articles about people who's death might have been something noted by a lot; I'm trying to recall the sources at the time, but there's a lot of personal feelings about Davis' passing but nothing that really went back to establish him as a notable person - famous, yes, but not notable. We definitely want the focus on what he did in the game journalism facet (and do have to agree that if Gerstmann is notable, we should be able to do the same with Davis as part of that whole mess) --MASEM (t) 17:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be enough sources and coverage to warrant keeping the article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only references are about his death. Links provided by Samwalton9 aren't about the subject; just quotes from him, or ancillary references. Fails notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Giant Bomb. I think he has enough to scrape by the GNG between the myriad of obit sources and non-obit sources about leaving GameSpot ([25][26][27]), but I've been watching this article since his death (missed the AfD tag somehow) and I think this article would remain a permastub. He is primarily known for Giant Bomb and everything that needs to be said about him (as covered in RS) can fit into the founding of Giant Bomb section. czar ♔ 03:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Giant Bomb as per Czar (talk · contribs), while an element of notability is certainly demonstrated, this article is pretty much doomed to be a permanent stub - given the subject is dead and unlikely to generate further independent coverage. Probably better understood in the context of the site's article. ~ mazca ^talk 09:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Giant Bomb. When 90% of the references are talking about the subject founding a brand it doesn't inspire confidence in this stand alone article. No opposition to re-creation once there's a article that's going to be more than a BLP-compliant stub. Hasteur (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Giant Bomb per arguments above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ursa Major. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Diamond[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies (in fact absolutely zero studies have been done on this star), not visible to the naked eye, not discovered before 1850, and not in a catalogue of note. Per the guideline, it would seem that a mention in the Delaware state symbols list is sufficient. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article to Ursa Major, the constellation it is located in. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binay Gurung[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No indications that claims of notability (one of the top Nepali bloggers or one of the top sports blogs on the net) are true. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Hoax, Self promotion (autobiography) — Ascii002 ^{Let's talk!} ^{^Contribs} 02:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Rpclod (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being a student, a blogger and loving to watch TV? No indication or evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable individual who doesn't even come close to the biographical notability threshold. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There is no credible assertion of significance. I've speedy deleted this once per WP:A7. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: No credible notability claims whatsoever, and this is at least the fourth recreation of a page that keeps getting speedily deleted. Kolbasz (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Autobiography, self-promotion. Since this has been repeatedly speedied, can someone protect the page to prevent it from being recreated? Gilded Snail (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: Clearly autobiographical, no demonstrated notability, and this page has been recreated ad-verbatim five times now under the names Binaya Gurung and Binaya gurung, and now Binay Gurung. I've warned the author of this before. Karzelek (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Internazionali di Tennis dell'Umbria. Subsequent redirect discussions can continue on their respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astra Italy Tennis Cup[edit]

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

Per tennis project guidelines $10,000 itf tournaments are not notable at all. There are countless thousands of these events all through the years and consensus is never to include them. One of the problems with including it is what happens if the ITF ever raises it to another level that does warrant inclusion? The results would not be fair to the new winners. It would be like if the Shanghai Masters were somehow pushed to a fifth Major 5 years from now. We wouldn't include the winners of last year's event as a Major winner when making wiki charts. The same here... it's a nothing event as it stands and we don't include them. It would also open up a can of worms to new editors who would feel conflicted about why some $10,000 tournies but not others. The men's event is fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I've pointed out to Fyunck, the Astra Italy Tennis Cup is a combined event with the Internazionali di Tennis dell'Umbria on the ATP Challenger Tour. Since we do include all events at the same tournament, it is irrelevant/insignificant that hereditary notability can't be given to the winner like it is to champions on the Challenger Tour. I'm not proposing creating stubs on all $10,000 ITF events, just ones which are notable when played with the notable men's draws. They belong together, even if it is one tournament with two names.

For anyone that is interested, the official website of the tournament showcases both events together. They are both played at the same time at the same place (Tennis Club 1971 Todi). Jared Preston (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also come across the following PDFs from the ATP and the ITF. Each show that this year's event is going by the sponsored name "Distal & ITR Group Tennis Cup", so the women's stand-alone "Astra Italy Tennis Cup" article could, hypothetically, be merged into the men's non-sponsored article name (Internazionali di Tennis dell'Umbria) and this year's drawsheets too. Jared Preston (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

then Merge and Redirect it to the notable Challenger counterpart. It's not a usual thing we do but what we certainly don't do is keeping a non-notable article because "reasons". At the end of the day the guideline decides. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have now merged the content into "Internazionali di Tennis dell'Umbria" so Astra Italy Tennis Cup can now be redirected there. Jared Preston (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the interim a couple forks developed which also must be removed. We also cannot have standalone articles such as 2014 Astra Italy Tennis Cup – Singles and 2014 Astra Italy Tennis Cup – Doubles. The main page is not notable, then the yearly events are even more non-notable. Those should be removed completely imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V.O.S[edit]

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

Prodded and deprodded on BLP technicalities (Ping User:Discospinster, User:Calathan), time to look into a more important issue - notability. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (music groups) requirement. Ping User:OnestarLim for a review of Korean references. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 15:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing sufficient information to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 16:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's plenty of information, it just is information typical of all Korean pop music articles - blogs, htm, rubbish. Someone has to wade through it all to find a few crumbs which pass western music WP:RS standards. a Best Of album doesn't prove notability but is a pointer. A secondary problem with this article is the aggressively ambiguous title. There are so many much other things at VOS dab, why should this article be getting in the way of them in autofill contrary to WP:DIFFPUNCT? I attempted to move it because of WP:DIFFPUNCT but was reverted. Note WP:DIFFPUNCT Special care should be taken for names translated from other languages and even more so for transliterated titles; there is often no standardized format for the English name of the subject, so minor details are often not enough to disambiguate in such cases. If it survives AfD it really shouldn't be clogging up the VOS dab in this manner. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. However, In ictu oculi and I were in disagreement about the title of the article before it was brought to AFD. Since he is making his case with the name here, I just want to point out here that I disagree with him on the name. The current name is fully in compliance with WP:DIFFPUNCT, as there isn't a primary topic that this should redirect to, and the hatnote allows someone to find the right page if they accidentally wind up at this band's article. No one typing VOS without periods will accidentally end up at this article when they wanted something else, since that goes to the disambiguation page. While someone might end up at this article if they wanted something else and typed V.O.S, or might end up at the disambiguation page if they wanted this article, the hatnote and disambiguation page allow people to reach the right article. That is exactly how WP:DIFFPUNCT says a situation like this should be handled. Calathan (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Two relistings with no one advocating that the article be kept. Deor (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memati[edit]

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

Fictional character biography that is written in such poor English that there is no chance of cleaning it up. The sentences simply do not make enough sense to be brought up to standard English. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 18:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been unable to find any significant coverage indicating this character is notable enough for a separate article. Even it it did, the page as it stands needs some ~~TLC~~ TNT. BethNaught (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamel Holley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Substantively identical recreation of previously soft-deleted page, unimproved since. No real evidence of notability. Additionally, the page content is junk; about half of it is copyvio from the sources, and about half of it is unthinking adulation of the subject. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references in the article about the subject establish notability supported by ample reliable and verifiable sources. Issues of tone / "unthinking adulation" can be best dealt by editing the text. I don't see the copyvio issues, but rewording is a similar solution for that. There is some repetitive content and material that focuses on other family members, but that too is best handled by further improving the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:BIO with sourced material.--TM 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little too much of that material being badly sourced... Bearcat (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article could use critical analysis, it needs editing rather than deletion.--Rpclod (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mayors do not normally pass WP:POLITICIAN until the place that they're mayor of is at least 2.5 to 3 times larger than this, and while this article does cite some sourcing it doesn't cite enough to make him the exception to the rule — the footnotes section, barely adequate as it is, would be sliced in half if I actually stripped all the primary or unreliable sources out (footnotes #1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10 have to go.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beat the Nation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 20:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Padfield[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and violates WP:NOTNEWS. Laun chba ller 20:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A senior QC, deputy High Court judge and bencher of the Inner Temple with an entry in Who's Who. He also played hockey for England. Just about scrapes by in my opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a copy of the book, could you add a page number?--Laun chba ller 17:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly enough, it's in alphabetical order! What on earth would be the use of a page number? Any decent British library has online access in any case, so page numbers are irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to see anything that is significantly notable. One reference is an unreliable "Who's Who" and the other is merely an article about an alleged unrealized offer to purchase a football club.--Rpclod (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Who's Who is certainly not unreliable. I fear you are confusing the genuine WW with the vanity knock-offs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious to me that Rpclod was using "Who's Who" as (and I hope I'm not going to get this wrong) a noun rather than a proper noun.--Laun chba ller 16:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I have absolutely no idea what you mean. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the article does not indicate sufficient notability to warrant keeping. I continue to vote Delete.--Rpclod (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What does it mean "he played hockey for England"? If the article stays, I think that needs to be explained for American audiences. Bali88 (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the confusion? If he played soccer for the United States (as a number of people just have done in the World Cup) surely that wouldn't be confusing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many different sporting events and things that Americans don't phrase things like that. If an American played in the world cup this year, we would say "He played soccer on the American team in the 2014 World Cup" to specify the event. How do we know it's the world cup and not the Olympics? In this instance, I had no idea there was any sort of world wide hockey tournament aside from the Olympics and in that case, I'd say "He played hockey for the American Olympic team in 1996". What type of hockey tournament did England compete in? Hockey isn't really that big over here. Also, is it ice hockey or field hockey? Bali88 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Field hockey. Follow the blue link. Since it's written in British English and we don't generally use the term field hockey: "hockey" to us means field hockey. If we mean ice hockey we say ice hockey, but ice hockey hasn't traditionally been terribly popular in England. Not everything on Wikipedia has to be written for consumption by Americans, just as articles on American subjects don't have to be written for consumption by non-Americans. "Played for England" just means be played at least one hockey match for England against a foreign country. Most likely in friendly matches and not a specific tournament. That's what we countries that play sports that other countries play too do all the time! It's probably confusing for Americans because you tend to play home-grown sports that aren't played by many other countries! But most people outside North America would understand that sentence perfectly. That's how we phrase it, so under WP:ENGVAR that's perfectly acceptable (indeed, it's expected) on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that articles should cater to the country they are written about, although personally, I would put it in parentheses if there is some additional information that would useful to people in another English speaking area, but I should clarify: this is possibly the only thing that could qualify as notable. Not being English, I really have no idea how big a deal this is in England and that makes it tough for American wikipedians to vote on this AFD. In America, just being on a national team probably wouldn't be enough. Being a key member on a team that won a world championship might count. If he got a ton of publicity for being on this team might count. Like I said, we have a ton of different leagues that play internationally and most of them are not notable so it's tough for American wikipedians to understand why "playing hockey for England" is anything to write home about. Is there a wikipedia page that we could link to that talks about the international hockey tournament he played in? That might help. Also, the who's who book...I'm not sure that qualifies either, but again, I have no idea how famous the people in these books are or how notable these people are considered in England. It wouldn't be of much interest in America, so I'm not entirely sure what to do with that. If you can provide any more details about the notability of these two things that might help with this AFD. Bali88 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - represented country internationally, QC and Bencher, surprised at nom. DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay, so I've asked around and people seem to be across the board impressed by the hockey thing, but everything else in the article, opinions seem to vary. I would suggest that the article should be written like "Nicholas Padfield is a former hockey play who was on the national team in 1986" if that is the thing that makes him notable. Currently, the hockey thing is a sidenote. Secondly, I'm unsure if being in Who's who is notable or not, but if that's the thing that makes him notable, it also should be noted in the article as opposed to simply being used as a reference. Also, I'm not sure that that book can be used as a source for anything aside from the fact that he is in the book as well as minor biographical information. Currently almost the entire article is sourced to the Who's who entry, but the wikipedia entry for Who's who (UK) mentions that the entries are self-written, so it would be the same as citing someone's personal website. If reliable sources can be presented for him, I'm willing to vote to keep. Bali88 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he's notable for being a senior QC and judge. That's why he's got a WW entry, not because he played hockey! Playing hockey for England is just an added bit of notability. WW entries are self-written, but they are checked and edited and one has to be pretty prominent to be invited to be in WW in the first place. It's not a vanity publication and you don't pay to be in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd incline to regarding all QCs and all national-level sportspeople as notable, and he's been both. Who's Who (UK) is a good reliable corroboration, but getting in is not an achievement in itself. It's his sporting and legal achievements that are the basis of his notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article on QC, in 2006, 175 out of 443 who applied to be considered QC were selected. This does not seem to be very selective and not qualification for notability. The "bencher" selection may be more notable, but nothing indicates that this meets WP:GNG requirements. Nothing in the article indicates what "playing hockey for England" actually means. I realize the sport that is referenced, but "for England" should be considered insignificant without further explanation.--Rpclod (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is a very strong pre-selection (and self-selection) of potential candidates. The current application fee is around UKP 2000, and if you are appointed, there is a further fee of ~UKP 3000, plus the actual cost of the Letters Patent . According to [28], fees were even higher in the past. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, one can buy notability? I remain surprised that one can be selected for being a good lawyer and decent athlete, without having accomplished anything particular other than that.--Rpclod (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment, and I suspect you don't understand the process. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with rpclodl that the notability of this particular guy is not as obvious as I'd like. If being on QC is super elite, that should be noted in the article, exactly how and why that is a special thing. A group of 175 people likely wouldn't cut it in America unless there was a respectable amount of news coverage. Similarly, the "played for England", that's way more vague than I prefer. The article should at least give the year he played. Also, Stephan, I think the part about the cost of being in QC is what is throwing him for a loop. Having money is not a qualification for notability so it's hard to see how that's relevant. Bali88 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point about the fee. Rpclod claimed that the process is not selective (because 1/3rd of the applicants make it) and maybe also that one can buy ones way into QC. But that's not how English society works. If you are generally considered "ripe for QC", you and your peers will know this. The fee is not a buy-in, it just helps uphold the exclusivity of the process by keeping people without enough gravitas from applying in vain, or on the off-chance of slipping in under the radar. I'd say that under that circumstances, 30% is quite selective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not under the impression that you buy your way in. I'm just saying your explanation of why it's selective isn't helped by saying "it's expensive". I'd prefer some reliable resources on this. I don't really care either way if his article is kept or tossed, but the fact is that this guy hasn't really gotten that much press coverage. If QC is really that big a deal, I think we can substitute sources saying that IT is a big deal for sources saying HE is a big deal. But the cost thing doesn't prove QC is notable. Bali88 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bali, read our article Queen's Counsel, and the QC appointments website. Being a QC is a big deal in legal circles. We don't need to explain in an article about a QC why being a QC is a big deal - anyone who knows anything about the law will know! DuncanHill (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a topic has an article in a sufficiently highly regarded encyclopedia, biographical dictionary or similarly organised work of reference, that is sufficient evidence that that topic is notable. A & C Black's Who's Who is a publication that falls into that category. It has a reputation for only including people who are worthy of notice. Whilst we have not gotten round to writing a subject notability guideline for this yet (though one of them does have inclusion at reasonable length in standard works of reference as a criteria), I think that most editors would accept that inclusion via a dedicated article in this type of publication creates a presumption of notability. James500 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy_Duren[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tommy Duren

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

Non-notable person Xyzzy6 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject is probably not notable and the article's credibility is impossible to discern with the references listed.--Rpclod (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough good sources, Or sources not good enough. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Olmos Muñoz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable individual. Diego Grez (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An AFD for this article was just closed 12 July 2014. As for Diego Grez's AFD nomination of Adriana Valdés article at about the same time, which had a prior AFD closed 15 July 2014, this seems inappropriate to me. There is no new information, no reason why a new AFD should be opened immediately. I assume Diego Grez means well, but there must be criteria for when a new AFD should be allowed, which should be explained. --do ncr am 02:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Several references are irrelevant. However, two indicate a possibility of limited notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Weak delete~~ - doncram is right, though the closer specifically cited WP:NPASR and the nominator followed those instructions. There was literally zero participation in the last discussion. I can't see that any of the external links (which I assume are supposed to double as sources) provide anything by way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Some simply confirm he existed and that he studied alongside a long list of others. Not seeing anything that would allow this fellow to pass WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Stalwart111 for explaining and pointing to wp:NPASR. I had assumed there must be some policy against quick renominations, but see now that this renomination was fine after all. Living and learning. --do ncr am 15:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appears to be a University Centre named after this individual: [29]. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game over. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. I'm withdrawing this nomination. However, I still think the article lacks references (of significance) to prove he was notable; the Universidad de Talca link is a good one. --Diego Grez (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Diego Grez. I wanna concede that the case for notability here is marginal, so the nomination was good to make. But with your withdrawing this by your statement, and seeing no Delete votes, this could be closed Keep now. --do ncr am 15:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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