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 01:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SimplyShe[edit]

SimplyShe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a company which doesn't make an especially strong claim of notability per se; the most substantive claim here is the vague and unverifiable "a leading supplier". Not blatant enough an advertisement to warrant speedy under G11, but dancing perilously close to that line. The "references", further, are mostly to (a) primary sources such as the company's own press releases, (b) unreliable sources like non-notable blogs, or (c) blurbs in publications that would pass our rules if the articles were longer, but which are in reality far too brief to actually constitute substantive coverage of the company. Literally the only source that even approaches substantive coverage is #6 (SFGate), and that isn't enough to get a company over the notability bar if it's the only substantive source that can be provided. (In addition, there's a conflict of interest here, as a Google search reveals that the creator's username, User:Craigmclaughlin ex, matches the name of this company's CEO's husband ("I met Maria Peevey (CEO of SimplyShe) and Craig McLaughlin (CEO of extractable.com) both of San Francisco, Ca., as they were planning their wedding at The Parker Palm Springs".) As always, I know that COI isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself if the article can be cleaned up with better sourcing, but it doesn't help the article's case if there are other valid reasons for deletion in addition to the COI alone. As always, I'm happy to withdraw this if the article can be salvaged with better sourcing, but it's not entitled to stick around in this form. Delete if improvement isn't forthcoming. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - After doing my own searches, I agree with the nominator that I can find small mentions, but not substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I concur with nominator's analysis. The SFGate article alone is not enough for notability, and there is nothing else. The article as written is practically incoherent - just TRY to figure out what they sell! - but that's not a reason for deletion. Lack of notability is. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 8 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 01:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D.J. Heckes[edit]

D.J. Heckes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is about a business person / author who fails to meet notability guidelines. Sourcing in the article is from non-reliable sources or is local coverage. I am unable to find any better sourcing in my own searches. Whpq (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Did not see any substantial, secondary WP:RS coverage provided or in searches. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with nom. -- GreenC 01:01, 8 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) 17:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodernism Building in Malaysia[edit]

Postmodernism Building in Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article has gone through several incarnations (the author doesn't seem to be sure what the subject of this article is supposed to be): the first consisted almost entirely of the copy-and-pasted resume of the architect Nik Mohamed Mahmood (which I have deleted). The second was about the Menara Axis building. As of now, it has been expanded into what seems to be a list of buildings in Malaysia which supposedly represent postmodernism; the references don't mention postmodernism anywhere, and sometimes don't even mention the individual buildings, either. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have previously nominated this for speedy deletion, and then it was recreated. This is a non notable subject and if it was, the article would have to be virtually rewritten.Staglit (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You prodded it, which is no bar against recreation. It wasn't speedy deleted. postdlf (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, it was speedily deleted by me as promotional and/or copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The kindest thing I can say is that it's a list and as such fails notability for standalone lists as a non-notable topic. With a wary eye to other stuff doesn't exist, we don't seem to have any similar articles for other countries.  Philg88 ^♦talk 04:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I'm a little surprised, but after a fair amount of poking around I'm not seeing this subset of architecture discussed in WP:RS. There may be non-English sources, and the article can be recreated once they are unearthed. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What a mess. I don't think this list is notable (from the title, I thought it was actually about a single building in Malaysia!) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be renamed Postmodern architecture in Malaysia if it's kept. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this appears to be someone's personal essay about the pros and cons of this architecture. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 7 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) 17:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Classic Clubs[edit]

FIFA Classic Clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks like a copy of the given source without the coat of arms. The Banner talk 21:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Well, yes I listed all clubs mentioned as classic by FIFA official website. I did it because i red about beeing a classic club in some wiki articles (like Club Atlético San Lorenzo article). So, I googled it to see what was it, then I created the article and linked to clubs considered classics by FIFA (I didn't finish with that). It's also similar to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Player_of_the_Century which is pretty much a list too !

But if you think this is not worthy in wikipedia it's ok to me. I just wanted to add cool info.

Sorry for my english. User talk:Wikipediow 21:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should add independent sources as only they can determine the notability of this list. And you should try to fix the internal links as the article has 23 links to disambiguation pages, like the link to Ajax. The Banner talk 21:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

I'm fixing internal links right now and I will look some info to add.

Give me some time before you decide to delete.

User talk:Wikipediow 21:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I fixed all desambiguation links in every team. Also added and referenced a book that lists clubs considered as classic. User talk:Wikipediow 22:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can see no encyclopedic value in this list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wholly non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 10:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Listcruft. Fenix down (talk) 14:37, 9 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) 00:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Coney Island[edit]

National Coney Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Local chain with no substantial coverage--certainly no non-local coverage. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - certainly the sourcing in the article could be improved, but my Lexis Nexis search shows notability (sorry about no links for easy reference). The chain has received quite a lot of press. Sure a good percentage is "local" in that it comes from Detroit, but coverage in large city newspapers (Detroit Free Press) is not usually what we think of when we say "local coverage". Non-local coverage includes profiles by Canadean, Zoom, and Lexis Nexis itself. The Toronto Star quoted National Coney Island as an authority on coney dogs and had a paragraph or two about the chain. USA Today listed it among the country's top airport food in 2009. CNN listed it as one of the 10 "airport restaurants that taste like home" in 2013. Several DFP stories featuring the chain have been picked up by affiliated papers nationally. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a large enough and noted enough restaurant to pass our notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article has numerous sources. --doncram 23:16, 8 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 01:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoosain ebrahim[edit]

Hoosain ebrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sufficiently notable Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails to pass GNG, no independent, reliable, indepth source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notable sources. The NYT Bestseller claim appears to be false, unless there is alternative name spelling. --GreenC 00:59, 8 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 01:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Dust[edit]

Delta Dust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does NOT need article of its own Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Negligible content. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable product with no significant topic coverage found in reliable third-party sources. Can be mentioned in the Bayer article, if appropriate.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, no real saveable content, other than a quick mention. In addition to the Bayer article, maybe also in Deltamethrin, along with other example products which use it as an active ingredient? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:15, 10 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. ignoring the single purpose accounts here, consensus shows she fails WP:GNG. Secret ^account 01:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madison McKinley[edit]

Madison McKinley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Why the page should be deleted

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ENT. Article fails WP:RS even after repeated attempts to find appropriate references. At best subject appears to be Wikipedia:Too_soon#Actors_and_actresses. The article appears to be an example of WP:PROMOTION with peacocks by people with clear WP:COI. During attempts to fix the article there were multiple sock-puppets banned for vandalizing, and an editor admitting to have been paid by someone with a probable WP:COI - [1]. Jersey92 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There certainly are trace elements of notability, but I'm thinking this might be a case of having been created too soon. As the nominator notes, COI/promotional edits have also been a problem, which generally lead me to the conclusion that it's not ready to stand on its own two feet yet. Once there's more coverage in reliable sources, the article can be recreated. Right now, there isn't really much to say except that she appeared on a reality TV show. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While there were a couple attempts to clean up the article since the nomination, none sufficiently address the issue of notability. The NY Times citation that was added is a page on the NY Times website that has the subject's name and little else (clicking biography there it even says "Gender Unknown") [2]... and may appear from an automated feed from a movie database... it is not a discussion about the subject... Hence I believe this should be Delete --Jersey92 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I came to this article through the RFC on the talk page, which is no long relevant. I arrived after the rewrite, but saw the remains of a multitude of unreliable and primary sources probably left over from the original. I went through and cut them back drastically. We have a pretty low notability bar for actors (and sportsman for that matter) and this, while not amazing, might be enough for her to scrape by. AIRcorn (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't that be at best a WP:BLP1E? Wikipedia is not going to have an article for everyone who appeared on a reality show... --Jersey92 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you if she hadn't had other minor roles. Also point 2 of one event says "...is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" which is debatable given her career choice. It is a weak keep at the moment given the lack of quality secondary sources, so I might be convinced otherwise. As Ninja says there are traces of notability and I think the COI elements have been dealt with satisfactorily so I am leaning to giving it a chance. AIRcorn (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but feel that what you are describing is pretty much WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject has independent coverage from reliable sources with many television roles. Also, as AIRcorn points out that the COI elements have been dealt with satisfactorily; the same goes with the promotional issue because I don't find any promotional information on the subject’s article. A bunch of poor sources were removed by different editors; the good sources are kept; and the citation issues are fixed according to the edit history. The Rfc is no longer applicable. This article may need expansion on the content, but not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. or Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cristine nickol (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Keep -- The reliable sources in this article are adequate to find this subject to be notable. Her acting career shows consistency year after year. This article provides more evidence of notability than just the reality TV. I do not see the reason why she is not-notable.Hillysilly (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Hillysilly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment So the sockpuppet and WP:COI saga has continued on the main Article page and spread to this AfD.

On the AfD:

Cristine nickol is suspected of a WP:COI with relation to this article and of being a sockpuppet - please see [3]

User:Hillysilly appears clearly to be a new WP:SPA. Please check Special:Contributions/Hillysilly

On the article page

User:Starshop72 appears very much to be a new SPA. Please se Special:Contributions/Starshop72 - all in 1 day and appear related...

User:Klokus has previously admitted having a WP:COI and being paid to edit this article. Please see[4] --Jersey92 (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To whomever is sockpuppeting / using SPAs: If you want this Article to remain please do more that write "Keep" or say that the problems are fixed or that the subject is Notable. This is not a vote. It is a discussion. Please produce and add to the article real WP:RS that show why the subject passes WP:NOTABILITY. In this subject's case that would likely mean WP:ENT. (I tried and did not find these.) More sources that either do not meet WP:RS or show that the subject is WP:TOOSOON or WP:BLP1E do not cause this subject to pass WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not bite the newcomers: I recently made a contribution to the reference section of this article with good faith. User Jersey92, Why are you attacking me with names? Please stop attacking me by calling me names, sockpuppet and SPA, take back what you said about me, and give me an apology. At the end of the day, the content of the article and the subject should be judged by themselves, not by looking at the editor or accusations. Please assume good faith. Thank you. --Starshop72 (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is attacking you. Assuming good faith, however, does not mean ignoring an obvious pattern of sockpuppetry and SPAs in an AfD discussion and its associated article. Various accounts with these WP:COIs were even banned by administrators for vandalizing Wikipedia. Please see link above. If we assume good faith from every SPA and sockpuppet we will not have objective AfD discussions. As the nominator I want to make sure this discussion about the article is obective. If you want to fix the article please do so with real WP:RS as I discussed above. As I wrote above this is not a vote. If 100 SPAs and sockpuppets say Keep without providing proper reasons this article is still going to get deleted. The fact that so much problematic editing is going on also makes me believe that this article cannot stand on its own and should be deleted. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Part of a noticeable pattern of activity on the part of an editor who appears to be here only to promote and has now received a final warning. Deb (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has been mentioned in the Rising Star magazine and reputed news media such as DenverPost, NYTimes, LAtimes and others in the article. She has filmography from 2007 to 2015. I must say the article should be given a chance to keep and improve.Natalia.chase (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)— Natalia.chase (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Another SPA... Article was given chance to improve with tags, RfC, and AfD and the response was vandalism, sock puppets and paid promotional edits. If there are real NY Times and LA Times coverage please add those references. Blank pages are not coverage. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Let's enforce the WP Terms of Use [5] with regard to obvious paid editor and sock Klokus as well as his minions. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:57, 10 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hater (Korn song)[edit]

Hater (Korn song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD of a non-charting single. Does not meet WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The song has now charted and so the AfD should probably be closed as it meets NSONGS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This isn't really a single. It's an album track that was sent out on promotional CDs to promote the album, and an album track that can be downloaded, just like every other album track, albeit in advance of the album in this case. No commercial physical release, and is just a single track off the album. A distinct lack of coverage suggests that while a mention in an article on the album may be appropriate, a standalone article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Track has charted. SPACKlick (talk) 08:28, 11 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 delete (G7). (non-admin closure)  Gongshow   talk 17:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Solomon[edit]

Tanya Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article being deleted. It is about me. What's the problem? I heard there was a copyright problem.....my biography is allowed to be used here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanyaviola (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sent an email with the appropriate authorization for this biographical information in the article. Tanyaviola (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue isn't about text being copied from your website, the issue is about notability. Per WP:GNG topics must show "significant coverage" from reliable sources independent of the subject. Also, if you want to involve yourself in editing an article about yourself you should familiarize yourself with WP:AUTOBIO. Tchaliburton (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Could just be a misunderstanding on her part. The article was also tagged for being copied from her website, so it's possible she thought that was the reason for the deletion notice. Regardless, Tchaliburton is correct, sources independent of the subject are needed to establish notability, and all I see is links to personal websites. Also, a google search is showing pretty much social networking and sites for purchasing music, nothing that can be used here to establish notability. Cmr08 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 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 and move. With a large contingent also supporting a move to be focused on the case rather than the company, there is no reason to delete sourced material that just needs to be reworked to suit. kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kleargear[edit]

Kleargear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This feels like more of a WP:BLP1E situation than a real long-term article on the company. As before, failed WP:ORG, WP:NOTNEWS among other issues. The last discussion was at the height of the controversy and I think with the passage of time, we can review things more clearly. If not delete, then maybe a rename to the litigation itself (Palmer vs. Kleargear.com) which I doubt is notable either. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The company is only notable for that one notorious case, but generally people only remember the company rather than the case name. My take is to rename to the case name, with Kleargear redirected there. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/refactor to Palmer v. Kleargear.com or a similar title. Unless Wikipedia has started recognizing Corporate personhood (and if that's the case, I missed the memo.) WP:BLP1E is inapplicable. I think there's an excellent chance that Kleargear is only notable for the case, though, and given the case really the subject of the coverage, a rename is warranted. WP:NOTNEWS is interesting here, but the most relevant guidance is really at WP:EVENT. There, we do have some international coverage, so WP:GEOSCOPE is modestly satisfied, WP:DEPTH as well, there is modest WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and given a possible appeal, it's difficult to estimate the chances of any possible WP:LASTING effect, some sort of precedent is plausible here given the novelty of the case, but far from assured. In short, we're left with a judgement call, and in view of those metrics, I lean toward retaining content per WP:PRESERVE, and titling it properly to correct issues of WP:UNDUE weight. If this is moved, I believe a redirect would be appropriate per usual practice. If there is a valid user for userfication, that would be my second choice in order to preserve content should an appeal to the Circuit Court happen. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously significant discussion from a multitude of secondary sources that satisfy both WP:RS and WP:V, and such references are located in multiple locations around the world. — Cirt (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wrong argument Company is not notable clearly fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG .The company is a very small one and company size was not criteria for inclusion as per closing admin.All coverage is only for the Case.A legal case about a company does not make the company notable as per WP:INHERITORG and WP:CRIME does not apply here.WP:NOTNEWS applies here the wide coverage it only for the case and not the company.DiMaria999 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC) — DiMaria999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, rename - ridiculously notable, clearly not the least bit deletable. However, I concur with Joe Decker's renaming arguments and Zhanzhao's redirect suggestion - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Deletion IMHO notable per basic WP:GNG. There very well could be merit to a rename.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Fails WP:Org ,WP:Notnews and WP:GNG.It has attracted news coverage due to the controversy but that does not make it pass WP:GNG.It was Kept, without any prejudice against opening another AfD after the current controversy has faded as per Closing admin in last AFD.DiMaria999 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC) — DiMaria999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename as suggested above, or perhaps merge into an existing article that talks about the topic (Censorship in the United States, Freedom of Speech in the United States, ...). -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename - Case was cited and discussed in the May 2014 issue of the American Bar Association's GPSOLO eReport as one of two examples of emerging litigation related to "Nondisparagement Clauses" in consumer contracts.
  Davis, N. C., Eskin, V. L., Catanzano, R. A., Vercammen, K., Axelrod, S. L., Romberg, S. L., ... & Firm, L. (2014). "The Yelper and the Negative Review: the Developing Battle Over Nondisparagement Clauses". GPSOLO eReport, May 2013, Vol 3 No. 10 p3-5.
  SBaker43 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Joe Decker. There's a lot here, though it's fairly recentist for my tastes, it's clearly notable. The WP:EVENT concern... meh... it's real, I'll grant that, but it's got the coverage to at least push it towards the "likely to be notable" side. That said, it was a default judgment, and any remaining contentious parts of the case will probably deal with boring, hashed-out civil procedure issues with no lasting effect. And really... even if we got a nice substantive decision on contract law, is it likely to do much other than discuss the enforceability of penalty clauses? But that's all speculation, and I could honestly be really wrong. In short, I think WP:GNG is met, and that's enough for me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename -For all the reasons cited above. It's obvious. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename—not much else to add that hasn't been said better already. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Delay I'm not really sure enough time has passed here, since the events seem to be continuing to unfold (the most recent event in the article is only a few weeks ago), so it's hard to tell how sustained the coverage is going to be in the future. That said, Kleargear by itself doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and I honestly think the legal case wouldn't, either. I think we should either delete it now until it becomes notable or, if we decide to keep, we should again keep with no prejudice against re-nominating after the actual case has finished unfolding. I would lean towards deleting, because we generally don't keep articles up for things in case they might become notable in the future. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename. The company is not notable, but the case is. It's had substantial coverage beyond the WP:NOTNEWS threshold in Business week, Techdirt, and non-local news providers (for example, Houston and US News and World Report), as well as the source cited by SBaker43, above. Move to Palmer v. Kleargear.com to make the article name conform to the topic and content. TJRC (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Delete The Company is not notable fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG why should it be kept ? Further William Franklin Bermender has nothing to do with Kleargear controversy why has his NAME been put up he quit in 2007 .MOST OF THEM VOTING KEEP ARE NOT SAYING THE COMPANY IS NOTABLE ONLY THE CASE IS PLEASE DELETE AND REWRITE AN ARTICLE ON THE CASE.5.104.108.125 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Deletion debate is only about the Company and it fails WP:GNG not on the case if you want to rename do it in Wikipedia:Requested moves not in WP:AFD.PLEASE DELETE IT the issue about the company not the case. 5.104.108.125 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As you are a new editor, who has only ever edited on this topic, and who has a very clear opinion about a subject who is not currently mentioned in the article... well, I have to recommend you read WP:PSCOI to determine whether some of it applies to you, as you, as a completely new editor, are likely unaware of it. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; the most important reasons to move the article, rather than delete it and recreate it with the new name (as championed by 5.104.108.125 and perhaps DiMaria999) are: 1) obvious waste of effort doing that. It's foolish to delete an article already written, only to re-write it trying to obtain the same content about the case; rather than pruning the existing article of bits that do not pertain to the case. 2) Doing so would violate WP:CC-BY-SA, which requires maintaining the list of contributors to the article. TJRC (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename: extended coverage of the legal case is sufficient for notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:27, 11 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. -- John Reaves 22:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oladele Bankole Balogun[edit]

Oladele Bankole Balogun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A candidate, not a member of the House of Representatives. n0ot yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Unelected candidate who does not pass WP:POLITICIAN on that basis, and has no strong or properly sourced claim of passing another notability criterion in its place. Also contains inappropriate personal details — we don't care what football club he's a fan of, or how many children he has — that nudge this just a bit too close to being a campaign brochure and a WP:NOTADVERTISING violation. Delete; no prejudice against recreation of a better-sourced and more appropriately encyclopedic version if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Being a local monarch in his hometown of Igarra (Akoko Edo Local Government Area of Edo State) + significant press coverage in reliable sources like Vanguard Newspaper, The Guardian (Nigeria) & Nigerian Observer 1 makes him pass at least 1 of the 4 guidelines stated in WP:POLITICIAN. PS: In Nigeria Towns make up LGA, LGA make up States and States make up a Country. He is a prominent ruler in Igarra.

Comment: What he has is an honorary traditional title for his contribution to his community. He is not even the major traditional ruler in his town. IMO does not pass WP:Politician and has not garnered sufficient coverage for WP:GNG. Darreg (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:29, 12 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 01:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sikuli[edit]

Sikuli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 06:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage. Refs provided are PR and developers' sites. A search turned up blog entries but not significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:40, 10 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. (see also the Sikuli AfD) j⚛e decker^talk 02:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SikuliX[edit]

SikuliX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable product. At best, it should be merged to Sikuli. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sikuli if it survives its own AfD, or delete otherwise. It is a clear subtopic of Sikuli, and its separate coverage is impractical. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:15, 5 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 Nenagh. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil Aonach Urmhumhan[edit]

Gaelscoil Aonach Urmhumhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom / WP:NN. Tá an-bhrón orm :/ - Alison ^❤ 19:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tipperary Nenagh per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect', on the one hand it's great that there are so many Gaelscoilanna now that there mere existence isn't notable, but that means that having articles for each individual one on Wikipedia is overkill. Nenagh is probably a better target for the redirect than Tipperary in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Redirect to Nenagh per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:40, 10 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 Kevin Reynolds (director)#The Resurrection. -- John Reaves 22:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ[edit]

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not convinced this meets our notability criteria. I've removed a lot of promotional and BLP stuff and only after doing that did I search for recent discussion of it. I can find very little to none in the last year, and I note that the funding is crowd-sourced. This article may have been created in order to aid that. I'm also confused about the release date, in the article 2016 but [6] says 2015 - perhaps lack of funding has postponed this. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me Doug, but crowdfunding has far less to do with notability than does coverage... no matter the topic. Just saying. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:TOOSOON JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as premature since filming has not started and is not guaranteed to, per the notability guidelines for future films. If filming does start, we can reevaluate the topic to see if it meets the general notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Redirect to director Kevin Reynolds (director)#The Resurrection for now as being just a tad TOO SOON for its own article. Project is "in development" and yes, due to title, returns a great number of false positives. But as the topic of this project already meets WP:GNG and is receiving coverage in such as Christian Post, The Guardian, Variety, Patheos, Inquisitr, Hollywood Reporter, Movies in Focus, Slashfilm, Huffington Post, Daily News, Coming Soon, JoBlo, Deadline, we can certainly consider reversing the redirect when the project begins filming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with a partial merge. Reviewing the article's page history, it looks like development started around March 2012, so that's over 2 years languishing in development. So we should not have a stand-alone article that pretends a film is about to happen. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Different film productions move at different paces. We both remember other allowed articles on film topics that were in talks and discussions and pre-production for years before ever getting made. The importance toward determining if notable enough to be written of somewhere within these page, even if never made, is the coverage... and THAT we have with this topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - Considerable work has been done on the article, so that it should be available to move back to article space if and when the film is completed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfication is fine before redirecting the title. This saves the article and its history for undeletion when it is decided that breadth of its consistent coverage [7][8][9][10][11][12] [13] [14][15][16][17], [18][19] meets WP:GNG and shows WP:NFF (paragraph 3) as met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:57, 5 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 Newmarket-on-Fergus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ballycar National School[edit]

Ballycar National School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NN primary school of children ages 4-12. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Newmarket-on-Fergus per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Newmarket-on-Fergus per precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Newmarket-on-Fergus seems to be the only sensible option. Finnegas (talk) 11:10, 8 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 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samjith Mhd[edit]

Samjith Mhd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly-sourced promotional biography of a film editor. The only available sources seem to be self-published sources. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. - MrX 16:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MrX 16:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - MrX is right. Fails all notability tests. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No good coverage in sources, still lacks more independent sources. Present sources like [20] and [21] are self-published and promotional. Fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:BASIC A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 17:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:06, 4 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. -- John Reaves 23:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pucelik[edit]

Frank Pucelik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

plain promo The Banner talk 23:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promotion of pseudoscience Neuro-linguistic programming. Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Selective merge to neuro-linguistic programming. Neuro-linguistic programming may be a pseudoscience but, like it or not, the amount of attention it has got in reliable sources over the past 40 years makes it a notable pseudoscience. That makes the claim in the article that its subject is one of the founders of NLP a definite assertion of notability which, as it is sourced to a volume co-edited by one of the generally-acknowledged founders of NLP, can be presumed verified. However, as that assertion is not elaborated in the article, it currently does no more than warrant a mention in neuro-linguistic programming, and needs that elaboration, reliably sourced from secondary sources, to establish notability for a stand-alone article. PWilkinson (talk) 12:23, 29 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 16:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Considering your comments I improved the article: added information and sources. I think that now it is logically structured and the moment of how all that NLP thing started is now described and can be verified (John Grinder wrote about Frank Pucelik as the third developer of NLP in his Whispering in the wind, for example). If you have any suggestions on improving the quality of the article I’ll be grateful to see them. Alexandra Garagulya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra Garagulya (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still plain promo. The Banner talk 11:34, 7 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. Secret ^account 01:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paco_Ahlgren[edit]

Paco_Ahlgren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nominating for deletion. I believe this to be a vanity page for self-promotion of this blogger. His only possible claim to notability is a self-published book that was reviewed by his local hometown newspaper.

Per the notability guidelines for authors, an author is notable if:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Certainly none of the preceding apply in this case. Snookyboo (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The book award isn't notable. The Midwest Review isn't notable it's basically a review mill. The Durango review is reliable but a local source, and one review isn't enough for #4 (prefer 3 to 5 reviews depending on source quality). The film would be notable, but it appears stalled. -- GreenC 03:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes an award notable or un-notable? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you can see in the history of Eric_Hoffer_Award, this award is so non-notable that its was deleted a while back. Awards for notability purposes are typically the large ones like Pulitzer or Nobel. Per WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Eric_Hoffer_Award is not well known or significant among literary awards. -- GreenC 14:17, 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, j⚛e decker^talk 16:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The coverage is insufficient to establish notability. Having one's book optioned is no guarantee that it will ever be turned into a film. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Author is notable having gained a Eric Hoffer Award and coverage in The Durango. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR #3 requires multiple book reviews, and normally of a national media rather than local sources. See comment above re: the award. -- GreenC 14:17, 11 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 per G5. The article was created by a sockpuppet of SpongebobLawyerPants, now blocked. -- Atama頭 19:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Meyer incident[edit]

Alberto Meyer incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a non-notable close encounter with aliens or cryptozoological creatures. I am unable to find any available sources. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 16:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 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 18:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have expressed views relating to overpopulation being a problem[edit]

List of people who have expressed views relating to overpopulation being a problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This topic does not meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, these sources are not reliable and obviously biased. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SALAT. This list is just too broad and too trivial, on a par with List of people who have expressed the view that war is bad or List of people who have expressed a preference for dogs over cats. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I was the person that compiled the article and as far as Bias is concerned I would be as happy to include all references the four mentioned in the article [22], [23], [24] & [25] and also any from opposing factions such as from The Truth magazine or from activistpost.com. If editors here are happy with the credibility of the organisations concerned and that they are not connected organisations then that sounds good. The main issue here is notability both of the people listed and that many of their quotes mentioned are frequently used time and time again. As far as the organisations that compiled the quotations I know that both the Population Institute Canada and Population Matters have large patrons boards that would be the envy of many research/advocacy groups who all have their own Wikipedia pages. PIC patrons PM patrons. They are notable organisations and I had hoped that the notability of the others would be shown by their content.

Admittedly there is a difficulty with the searchability of the title. Population concern advocates or whatever you want to call them don't have easy to use terminology like “environmentalist”. If anyone has views on a less cumbersome a name for the article that would be welcome. It is a notable topic with people on both sides of the argument compiling notable quotes from notable people. Gregkaye (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Trivial? The topic has so much controversy that some of the people mentioned have had to really go out on limbs and leave organisations to express them. Gregkaye (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overpopulation is not trivial. A list of people expressing their views about it (or pollution or prostitution or religion ...) is. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Should we create "List of people who have expressed views relating to cats being a problem" next?, In all seriousness I'm failing to see the whole point of this article.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A problem with cats is never be likely to drive people to starvation or to drive down water table levels to dangerous levels. Away from the world where some people have the fortune to have the spare time to edit Wikipedia others are increasingly pushed into struggle for survival lifestyles. They face unnecessary difficulties that, amongst other things, reduce their chances of education and betterment. Its fine if you do not think that the issue of population is important or that it has as little importance as an issue with cats. And perhaps that's where there is a difference. For me the notability thing is the lack of political attention that is given to the issue of population. Many senior scientists and leaders in their fields say that population is a centrally important issue for all our futures and yet so few senior political figures take on the issue as their responsibility. Peoples of various regions of the world are coming finding it increasingly hard to feed themselves while persisting with unsustainable birthrates that will quite likely end in famine or war. Please don't trivialise this with talk about cats. Gregkaye (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever heard of Sarcasm? ... The cat thing was just that... –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is disputing the notability of overpopulation as an issue of concern. It's this list that isn't notable or encyclopedic. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow that's great news and I really wish it was true. Its astounding how little support the issue has got and how much resistance has been given in various areas of environmentalism. Cats have been mentioned twice here for no apparent reason. I know that you have heard of serious issues and population's one of them. And there is a notable gap between the conclusions on the topic of some of the worlds leading thinkers and our responses across our societies. Gregkaye (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Now you're invoking WP:SOAPBOX. It's not even a contentious topic. Everybody agrees overpopulation is a problem. We just don't need a list of people reiterating the obvious. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No indication of the importance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per nom & several above. Topic is not notable. List serves no real purpose and does not contribute significantly to the encyclopedia. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 17:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• ho hum, but see Environmentalist#Notable_environmentalists for an similarly meaningless list. Gregkaye (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry If I'm a bit dense here but that link is a list within an article .... This AFD article is just one huge list of meaningless crap?... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That list is indeed within an article, where there is a lot more context for the list and, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, people are often known for their environmentalist views while simply expressing a view is rarely notable. The subject of this AfD notes people like Confucious, whose contribution was "Excessive (population) growth may reduce output per worker, repress levels of living for the masses and engender strife," at a time when the world's population was 1/2000 of what it is now. The views expressed by those in this list need context, which the list doesn't provide. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like the likely deletion of this article is being circumvented by some edits to ((population)).[26] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted the changes and asked the editor to begin a discussion on the talk page so a consensus could be reached. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 17:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Utterly subjective list with no logical inclusion parameters. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The topic is far from trivial, but ... being associated somehow with an issue does not make a coherent list. My suggestion is to limit the scope of the list, perhaps to something along the lines of Notable population control activists. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This allows for totally unrelated to notability inclusion, and it is unclear what a view would be. If someone say "overpopulation could never be a problem" do they get included? If they said it once at a bar, and it was reported in a gossip rag do we include it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 8 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 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a Valley by the Sea[edit]

In a Valley by the Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find anything about this album, and I did a pretty thorough search.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:14, 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 16:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notability –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no evidence of meeting WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 10 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 List of Miami-Dade County Public Schools#Middle schools. Deor (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ammons Middle School[edit]

Ammons Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable middle school. The only notability is an award to a former principal, not to the school. Jacona (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The school and its faculty have received numerous awards and were mentioned in trade publications. That satisfies notability. A few links were dead but I dug up some PDFs for them. edit: I've recovered them with the wayback machine. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if a faculty member is notable, the school is therefore notable?Jacona (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that the awards themselves (as distinct from the institution granting the awards) are notable? Epeefleche (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. I really don't think the awards are notable. Nor is this middle school.Jacona (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe primary sources support notability -- we need secondary sources to satisfy GNG. And I don't at this point see the indicated awards as of themselves notable. And I don't believe every school that has a student participating in the spelling bee is ipso facto notable. Does the Keep !voter have other reasons for his !vote? Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the bee: the students were semi-finalists in the 2012 & 2014 Scripps bees, and won a regional bee held by Miami Herald. Scripps isn't just a bee, it is the Super Bowl of bees and is broadcast live on ESPN and national television, and the student received national attention for her participation (she is the cover shot for many reports). Only 281 students out of 11 million participate in the Scripps bee annually. It should be worth noting, that accolades for the institution and its students are at least somewhat significant as the school is a Title 1 school serving at risk, low income and minority students. These students generally perform below national average or even grade level yet this school consistently ranks high. Here are a few mentions I dug up about the school. (also: I am not a "he") -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misread my comment. I didn't refer to it as "a bee." I referred to it as "the spelling bee." I'm not sure with whom you are disagreeing. My comment stands. And, btw -- the students who made the semi-finals aren't themselves eligible as a result of that (let alone their school). Though ... kudos to them. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to school district, per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary elementary schools are presume non-notable. See for guidance WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Carrite (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to school district per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 10 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) 00:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ufer[edit]

Bob Ufer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BCAST, as the only statements of significance appear to be of memorable broadcast moments and the founding of an insurance company. Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also appears to fail WP:ENT as is only known locally. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinding my vote based on additional information. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Well he may not be known around the world he is a major figure in Michigan and other parts of the USA. With over 36 years as a public figure in Michigan makes him worthy of being here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeBK (talk • contribs) 13:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There seems to be enough national coverage of Ufer, including his obituary picked up by the Associated Press, to establish his general notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NTRACK as the former world record holder in the 440 yard (quarter mile) run. Also passes WP:GNG as a figure who has received significant coverage in the mainstream media, including national media outlets such as ESPN.com (here), The Sporting News, Associated Press, and the Chicago Tribune including here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the in-depth coverage provided in several reliable sources above. Cbl, if you can find a reliable (in this case, official) source for the subject's 1942 world record in the 440-yard dash, I would be inclined to call for a "speedy keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sporting News should be a reliable source. In its obituary for Ufer, November 14, 1981. p. 59, it says that Ufer "held the world indoor mark for the quarter-mile in 1942." Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the 440 record was mentioned in the AP obituary, too, but we both know how legends grow and obituaries soften reality. Honorable mentions become All-Americans, etc.; I've seen a lot of "inflation" in sports-writing, and the writers rarely check original and/or official sources. I would trust the Big Ten and University of Michigan track & field media guides -- they should list all official records set at UM and Big Ten events. Also, if he set an official world record at the Big Ten Conference championships, wouldn't there be contemporary newspaper coverage? Perhaps even in national newspapers like The New York Times? In any event, the subject clearly satisfies WP:GNG based on the several feature articles you've already found. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an on-line progression of the half-mile world record, but The Sporting News is pretty reliable -- not a local newspaper. Also, the United Press in this 1944 article said he remained at that time the world record holder in the 440. The Bentley Historical Library also says it here as does the Michiganensian here and The Ann Arbor News here. Cbl62 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just did a Google News archive search and I'm finding a hodge-podge of stuff from the 1940s, more or less contemporaneous. I found an interesting discussion on the Track & Field News blogsite on point here. We've got a record time (48.1), name of the previous record-holder, and the name of new record-holder who broke Ufer's time. Sounds pretty credible to me, especially when combined with the modern articles that were contemporary with his death. Part of the problem is that the International Olympics Committee and the world track body stopped recognizing non-metric records in the early 1900s, and treated American world records in non-metric distances as non-records. I tweaked the text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:25, 7 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) 18:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arvida Middle School[edit]

Arvida Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable middle school. Jacona (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. This does appear to be one of those rare middle schools with some notability.Jacona (talk) 16:20, 3 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. - No valid reason nor policy was stated. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howrah Delhi Janata Express[edit]

Howrah Delhi Janata Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It is not notable JDgeek1729 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fairly notable. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is one of the oldest trains that run in India being introduced in 1946. Although Indian Railways wanted to discontinue it but it has been given a new lease on life. Hence it should not be deleted.Superfast1111 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Major named long-distance train. Can't imagine a similar US one, say the City of New Orleans, going up for AfD. Might this be a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 00:32, 5 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 delete a-11, made up by article author. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Leinadia[edit]

The Chronicles of Leinadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability (WP:N) Chaveyd (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This series, and the only book listed for this "Fantasy novel series", are unknown to Amazon, Abebooks, bookfinder.com, WorldCat, isfdb.com, and Google books. The only hits in Google for "The Chronicles of Leinadia" + "Kilkelly" (the author's last name) are to Wikipedia and sources that copy Wikipedia; and the same is true for the equivalent search on the only book in the series. Chaveyd (talk) 14:09, 3 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 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rivista[edit]

Rivista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

orphan, unsourced one-line stub about an apparently non-notable web content management system. A lot of false positives, in the sense of "revue" or "magazine" in Spanish/Italian languages, but I was only able to find a couple of trivial mentions in niche magazines about this web application. Cavarrone 12:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and suffers from WP:MILL issues, thus should be deleted per WP:NOTCATALOG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Software (CMS) stub article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search for Godengo Rivista turns up PR, incidental mentions, and blogs, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 09:32, 5 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 16:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowra Plaza[edit]

Cowra Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an entirely unsourced article on a shopping centre of 15 stores. I am a pretty hardcore inclusionist when it comes to infrastructure like shopping centres, but to use a bit of Australian slang, having an article on one this small is taking the piss. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N, search failed to find any useful references to support notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABILITY - no evidence of notability from article or Google search. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:ORG. article makes no claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. SNOW candidate. Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 7 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. Consensus is that further editorial attention is needed, but keep for now.Mojo Hand (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regional handwriting variation[edit]

Regional handwriting variation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research. Handwriting variation exists – see handwriting – but I see nothing in this article that supports that English handwriting varies regionally, in the text or the few references. The variations identified seem to be from foreign languages and archaic ones, so nothing to do with modern English handwriting. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If this had been created recently I would have been tempted to push it back to the creator and tell them to reference it properly. However, the article started in 2002 so maybe there is some agreement that the topic and content are suitable (though the referencing is not). I think the nominator has misunderstood the scope of the article. It is explicitly not restricted to English although it does only seem to deal with "modern". By "regional" is meant regions of the world. If the references are improved I think it will emerge that most of this is not original research. Thincat (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't checked how old it is and that is quite old, back to when our notability standards were quite different. As for English/non-English of course other languages include variations but that's as they are other languages with more or fewer letters, accents, one or more distinct glyphs etc.. The article barely scratches the surface of this. But mostly the topic is entirely unsourced: the references aren't on regional handwriting variations at all but on general variation and the problems it can cause.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is not about variations in "English handwriting" as the nominator understood. It's about variations in the way people write Latin letters and Arabic numerals across various global regions, spanning different cultures and languages. The references and citations could use improvements, but this topic has merit. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For global variation in handwriting styles, we already have some good coverage in the articles Calligraphy, Palaeography, and Penmanship. One reference I was able to find about this topic is the article SURVEY OF HANDWRITING STYLES BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION. I'm still undecided about this article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:51, 4 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. It is 8-2 in favor of deletion if I have done a vote count, but Tomwsulcer sources on the subject on whether she meets WP:GNG wasn't properly countered, which made most of the delete arguments moot. Secret ^account 00:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Owen-Taylor[edit]

Angela Owen-Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Search of subject's name in Google News turns up only three hits, all of them including only passing mentions of this person. I found no wider indication of notability elsewhere (the "enough sources" mentioned in the previous deletion nomination include a moment when she recognized someone else for getting into the Commonwealth Games, a comment she made on the need for a park upgrade, and a time when she got her car broken into-- none of which is about her or discusses her in any depth) . Article therefore appears to fail the requirements of WP:GNG on these grounds. KDS4444^Talk 11:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, specific case aside, judging notability on the sole basis of Google News currently lacks sense, especially since January, when Google stopped its news archives service. Actually GNews only reports news of the last month or so. --Cavarrone 12:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor political figure at the local level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider Brisbane to be large and internationally famous enough that its municipal councillors could qualify in principle for substantive and well-sourced articles, but this is neither of those things. And indeed, Cavarrone is correct that notability cannot be judged solely by Google News hits alone, as Google News aggregates only a few weeks worth of coverage and fails to locate coverage extending further back than that — so GN is a good tool for verifying the accuracy of a fresh claim of notability (e.g. a new article about a politician who just won an election that took place last week), but is not an infallible gauge for the notability of a politician who's been in office since 2008. So no prejudice against future recreation if somebody can create a good and properly sourced new version of an article about her, but this version as written is a delete due to its reliance on exclusively primary sources and lack of any real content more substantive than the fact that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Elected politician, member of the governing body of Australia's 3rd largest city, population about 2.25 million. Passes WP:POLITICIAN on that basis, in my view. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that's lacking, though, is reliable sourcing. Even a person who cleanly passes one of our inclusion guidelines is still not entitled to keep an unsourced or primary sourced article, and can still be deleted for failing to cite reliable source coverage — the only concession being that it can subsequently be recreated again if real sourcing shows up. It's not the mere assertion of notability that gets a person past one of our notability guidelines — it's the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to verify the assertion. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, Brisbane's a big city, but they also have a big city council, with 26 councilors. Considering WP:POLITICIAN, subject doesn't meet criteria #1 (international, national, or subnational (i.e. province-wide) office), #2 (local politician with significant press coverage), or #3 (meeting general notability criteria), so I'm not sure how you'd consider this part of the guideline a basis for keeping the article. Agyle (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and Notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter what position she holds if she is not active enough to generate significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Did not find significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. I found several sources of one-sentence mentions of her presence at various meetings or events, photo captions in which she is mentioned, but I don't consider these to be significant coverage (e.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8). This Courier Mail article provides a medium amount of coverage about projects on which Owen-Taylor commented. Agyle (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Carrite. There are numerous references in Australian newspapers, although I agree that each one is often only a sentence or two, or a quote here or there. Thing is, this lady is a very active politician, going everywhere, attending to all kinds of issues, active, busy, quoted on many topics, and maybe it is just that democracy is much more active in Australia than in the USA. She is clearly an important figure in Brisbane politics -- as pointed out a city of several million people, Australia's third largest, and most notably mentioned in the movie On the Beach as one of the last holdout cities before Melbourne succumbed to radiation, in case anybody saw that movie. She has many important tasks in Brisbane government: deputy council chair, deputy finance chairperson, economic development, and the Lord Mayor on multicultural affairs, whatever that is, but is sounds like they could give her a stallion to ride around for that one, plus costume, issuing edicts maybe even, issuing firebolts and epithets. Of the numerous references, several mention her in depth: this article is almost entirely about her, she is covered extensively in this article, she was a prime focus when angry residents protested her office, and she was featured prominently in this article. Taken together, in sum, with multiple in-depth independent references supplemented by numerous articles in which she is clearly active, quoted, working on many projects, etc, suggests she clearly meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tomwsulcer, I've checked out your links, my good man, and the problem with the articles that you mentioned-- and it is a common one on Wikipedia-- is that they aren't really about her, they are about a park or a ward or a project and though she may be quoted extensively in the article that doesn't really make the article about her (if we were discussing an article on the park or the ward, these articles would totally go towards verifying their notability, though!). That is why I don't think they add up to bona fide notability (at least, not yet, anyway! But perhaps soon...?) Just some thoughts. I hear Brisbane is a lovely city, though. KDS4444^Talk 04:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • KDS4444, I see somewhat your point, in that the current eighteen references focus on what she does (her actions, policies, statements etc) rather than who she is (her beliefs, backstory, education etc). But my question is, can we separate what we do from who we are? Can we separate actions from identity? My sense is they are tightly intertwined, that what we do as humans and who we are as humans are inseparable, that we define ourselves by our actions. Consider American politician Barack Obama: there are numerous references about what he does in his biographical article. What does he do? Obama signs this bill, does this, signs this bill, or this, or won't fund this project, and so forth. Who is Obama? He is the person doing these things. These references are in Obama's wiki-article, rightly so, because they establish notability; if we remove these references on the basis that the focus of each one is not strictly about Obama and who he is, then the article is reduced to practically nothing. Similarly, by the numerous references about Owen-Taylor's actions as a leading politician in the 3rd largest Australian city, a picture emerges of who she is: builder of playgrounds, roads, waterways (which resulted in conflict with residents etc), pushing forward a $215 million restoration of Brisbane's city hall, etc. It may not seem important to people living in other countries, but it is important to Australians. Further, there are sixty references to Owen-Taylor in the Courier Mail but viewing them is blocked by a paywall; I was only able to view one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Agyle says it's a big city, but the important fact is that the city has 25 such councilors plus the Lord Mayor. How is this person more notable than the others? – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of other councilors and their notability is not relevant here; the question is, is she notable? I believe she is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails Point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN, extensive searching found no significant coverage in any source, let alone reliable secondary sources. SPACKlick (talk) 10:55, 14 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) 03:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Postmarks[edit]

The Postmarks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I nominated this article WP:PROD, but someone challenged it. I then looked for the better and multiple references referred to in their reasoning for contesting the PROD, but can't find sufficient breadth/depth for them to pass WP:NMG or WP:GNG. Aside from creating three albums - the first of which apparently is "well reviewed" but is one of the barest articles around, and which also lacks refs - I can't presently how they get close to WP:NMG. Rgds Trident13 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Strange that you didn't find coverage. The first page of Google results when I searched led to all these: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. I didn't feel the need to venture onto the second page of results as notability is already clear. --Michig (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I dug a bit deeper and also found: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. A more through search would likely find more. --Michig (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC) ...and [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. --Michig (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Upon doing a search in music rags as well as a google search it seems that there is plenty to support this article being saved. I do agree the article is not the prettiest page on wikipedia, but I think we should tag it for what needs to be done and allow it to grow. I do find this group to be notable.--Canyouhearmenow 12:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even ignoring the sources above, the RSs cited in the article were probably enough for a claim of notability. Cavarrone 12:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But the article needs to be edited. There are sufficient WP:RS results from Google searches to pass WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:SNOW. Sources are abundant online as shown above; subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND.  Gongshow   talk 17:07, 4 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) 12:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infotisement[edit]

Infotisement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not cite any references or sources. And I don't think it's notable enough for wikipedia. A8v (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Advertorial. As far as I can tell, they're the same thing, but feel free to prove me wrong. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely invented term without any use outside one person's definition; all 'print pieces as ads' are just known as advertorials or paid advertisements, not this. Nate • (chatter) 00:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; see also Talk:Shockvertising. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 7 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 Natalie_Duncan#Discography. -- John Reaves 23:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live In Real World Studios[edit]

Live In Real World Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The album have no good coverage and independent evidences. No reliable sources, hence fails under WP:NALBUMS. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 05:20, 17 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 01:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 25 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to Natalie_Duncan#Discography seems to be the best option here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:54, 3 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 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Mae[edit]

Me and Mae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO, depending on single source to support claims of notability. Google results look like press release material, assuming my bubble is being honest. Dolescum (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 18 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 01:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They have media coverage but it's mostly local and interviews: local press[62][63], radio[64], and TV[65][66][67][68][69]. Websites of uncertain reliability[70][71]. Not convinced of notability yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:30, 25 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete--There is no major news source regarding this band in the music trades in either Canada or the US. This fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO. I also would not think that a group that is not fully formed or has just recently added players to their group would have had enough time to gain notability. As early as 2013 they were still looking for members>[72]. This one needs to wait until it gains more notability.Canyouhearmenow 12:46, 3 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 Lake_County,_Illinois. -- John Reaves 23:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lake County Sheriff's Association[edit]

Lake County Sheriff's Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable association. I'm sure they do great work and all, but there are thousands of these local sheriff's associations in the US alone, each local in scope. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 18 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 01:15, 25 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What about merging as a new section of the article Lake County, Illinois + redirect? It may be a constructive solution. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Normally, I'm all for merges but the problem is that there are no sources and nothing worth mentioning. They have 314 members and are a typical sheriff's association, ie: you have to be an employee of select departments of the county to be a members. It isn't a public support group and they don't claim to have actually ever done anything other than exist. There really isn't anything to merge. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 08:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I admit that when I did proper online research I found nothing substantial (WP:RS) about the organization. You are apparently better informed in this area so I'll trust your opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment & Keep-- Wouldn't it be better to do as suggested above and merge this into the abovementioned article? I agree the organization may or may not be the most notable, but none the less it is a viable part of that area, city or county. The fact that it is a professional association affiliated with the police would in my opinion make it somewhat notable. Maybe not grand, but notable. I understand also the claim that they have never done anything, but a look at their calendar does show that they are involved inside of their community and meeting their mission statement as demonstrated here> [73], [74], [75] and here> [76]. Seems that would be worth at least merging into the article although I agree its not notable enough to garner it's own page.Canyouhearmenow 13:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'm a member of the association of winegrowers and winemakers in the village where I live and I can imagine that a mention in the article about the village would be enriching even though there are no independent sources about our organization ... it's hard to say. Lakecosa looks like a bigger association, undoubtedly :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable independent sources with significant coverage, nothing to say. --Bejnar (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment--Again, I also think there is not enough notability to justify this subject having it's own page, but I certainly see where this subject should be merged into the abovementioned article. I believe that its importance is to bring yet more notability to said article because it is a program within its jurisdiction.Canyouhearmenow 20:58, 11 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. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 23:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike O'Brien (Michigan politician)[edit]

Mike O'Brien (Michigan politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No-office political candidate that lost a 2012 election; strongly non-neutral and article abandoned after election. Probably does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) but difficult to tell yet because of all the political spam and polling coverage. Closeapple (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2012#District 6, as the person doesn't seem to be separately notable; he's just another candidate who lost against incumbent Fred Upton in one of Upton's numerous elections. It has 38 references, but it seems like the vast majority of the sources are of the kind that aren't worth much for notability: (1) pure self-sourced campaign advertising material and "biographies" from conflict-of-interest political organizations; (2) updates about polls from time to time during the election season, not biographical material; (3) announcements of campaign stops; (4) short mentions in multi-candidate summaries during campaign season. It appears that the user who was behind this non-neutral article didn't even believe in the article except as a temporary campaign tool: He simply abandoned Wikipedia when it appeared that the candidate wasn't going to win. The only valid edit since the 2012 election was an uninvolved user adding one line mentioning that this person lost. --Closeapple (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without large amounts of biographical coverage, candidates for congress are not notable. An example of a notable candidate for congress is Mia Love. Of course, she had a biography before she announced any intention of running for congress. I know, I created it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article on the election (even if the standalone article were deleted outright, he'd still be at least mentioned in that one anyway, so a redirect is legitimate). Unelected candidates do not warrant coverage in Wikipedia just for being candidates; John Pack Lambert is exactly correct that having already established notability before becoming a candidate for Congress is the primary way in which an unsuccessful candidate for Congress can actually get over our notability bar. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 2 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) 07:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Closeapple. Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Bearcat. Tiller54 (talk) 16:56, 12 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 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Hills, Saskatchewan[edit]

Strawberry Hills, Saskatchewan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability of this community not verified by reliable secondary sources. Google search for "Strawberry Hills" Saskatchewan -wikipedia yields essentially nothing but real estate websites. Neither Statistics Canada nor the CGNDB, which would be reliable secondary sources, recognize the place within the RM of Aberdeen No. 373. [77] [78] [79] [80] Past consensus for similar articles is that country/rural residential subdivisions (real estate developments) are not inherently notable simply for existing. Hwy43 (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Hwy43 (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable small-scale housing development. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:11, 16 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 21:02, 24 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 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:31, 25 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable area. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:18, 3 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donghua Liu[edit]

Donghua Liu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Almost-notable businessman currently enjoying his fifteen minutes' fame on the local blogs. Page is a magnet for BLP violations, not just of Liu but of people he has allegedly done business with. Listing at AFD to nip these problems in the bud Daveosaurus (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New Zealand is currently in the build up to the New Zealand general election, 2014; immigration and campaign funding are issues; Donghua Liu is a recent immigrant who may or may not have given to one or two political parties. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]