< 15 June	17 June >

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galway Post Code[edit]

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

This article is unsourced. It violates WP:GNG policy, as there are no reliable sources that significantly cover the postal codes of Galway. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear cut case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY point three. Seattle (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It also appears to be incorrect. The Eircode site shows a sample postal code of A65 F4E2, which does not seem to be the format described in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom but also unsourced, no such system exists. Ireland, as yet has no postcodes. Eircodes are not offical postcodes yet and with the years of procrastination, who knows if it will ever really happen. One Irish postcode article will likely be sufficient and it exists as Postcodes in Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 16:33, 23 June 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. There appears to be a rough consensus that, at the very least, there are significant OR issues with this list. All the delete !votes make strong arguments questioning the standard for inclusion in this list and how it'd be categorized. Editors seeking a merge also seem to agree, at least in part, that this as a stand-alone article is problematic. I think there's agreement among all sides that the idea of secret identities for superhero characters is notable, but there isn't consensus for a a merge to Secret identity. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of occupations and roles of secret identity personas of fictional characters[edit]

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

This is some kind of list, but the inclusion criteria is very vague. It violates WP:LSC policy. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(PLEASE NOTE The title of the article has been changed removing reference to roles to further reduce ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talk • contribs) 13:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep<edit-my bad, sorry, was mistaking "erroneous basis for nomination" as a Speedy Keep rationale, rather than the valid "no reason given"> Really, the inclusion criteria is not only utterly explicit and precise, but in my opinion, unnecessarily narrow. Harder to understand than you would prefer? Sure, go ahead and edit to make it clearer. But vague? No.

"This list relates to the occupations and roles of secret identity personas of fictional characters at times following the development of at least one alter-ego persona associated with the character and within situations in which the secret identity retains a significant level of secrecy." Anarchangel (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In what universe is this list too vague? Delete It has been brought to my attention that the notability of the list is also a problem. I am Quibilia. (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~Delete~~ to Secret identity. Please see comment below. Non-notable topic per stand-alone list criteria. No reliable sources available. ~~The topic could be dealt with in a section in Secret identity, but that article is precipitously close to its own AfD.~~ Philg88 ^♦talk 07:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~,~~(edit: change of mind following Postdlf's comments below)~~ Keep(again change mind after realising that Postdlf's comments aren't don't give valid reason for delete). Gregkaye (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC) secret identities are notable in that characters that have them frequently consider them to be of great value. Their noteworthiness is also demonstrated in fact the secret identities of Superman and Wonder Woman have been afforded their own Wikipedia pages despite the fact that these topics could be dealt with within their own sections of title articles. All the items placed on the list are easily corroborated. Any item that may be placed on the list that cannot be corroborated can be challenged and removed. Gregkaye (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the secret identities of Superman and Wonder Woman are not lists and therefore not related to this discussion, which is about list notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have given explanations as to why the secret identities of fictional characters are a notable topic and can go on. The article supplies a compilation of important facets of the cover stories that characters use and, in many cases, the occupations mentioned constitutes lifestyle maintenance method on which the character depends. All the information provided has been noted in various sources. Gregkaye (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally unclear why the jobs of superheroes and the like, when they are not playing superhero, would be a notable list subject. Fram (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that is often unclear is whether it is the persona with the job "playing" the heroic or other persona or whether it is the heroic or other persona that is "playing" the role of the persona with the job. Perhaps the X-men "played" at fighting off the Sentinels and perhaps Macbeth "played" at being king. Arguably, it was Macbeth that had more choice but I just mention this for comparison. The point is that, from a characterisation perspective, the heroic or other personas belonged to characters who did their best to cope with typically challenging situations by a variety of means. The article lists some of those means. Gregkaye (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And? The relevance to this discussion? The heroes/villains had "real-life" characters with "real-life" jobs (in their fictional universe). Some of these "real life" characters are independently notable, the others are included in the article on the hero/villain. We get that. To jump from this to having a list of these "real life" jobs is not explained though. Are the jobs of the real-life characters of superheroes a notable enough concept to spend a list on, or are we descending one step too low on the ladder of notability here? I believe this is taking things too far, not all verifiable aspects of notable concepts are acceptable list topics. Fram (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Actually secret identities are notable since their characters appear on television, in books, in comic books, and in plays just to name a few. I agree with Gregkaye in that: "Superman and Wonder Woman have been afforded their own Wikipedia pages despite the fact that these topics could be dealt with within their own sections of title articles." Well said kind sir, well said! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What policy reason do you have for a "speedy keep"? Wikipedia:Speedy keep gives five possible reasons, none of these apply here. Further: no one disputes that some secret identities are notable, but that doesn't mean that a list of the jobs people have in their secret identity is a notable concept for a list. If you want to argue for a keep, you have to indicate why this article is notable, not why some related but not under dispute concept is notable. Fram (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want to argue for a delete, you have to indicate why this article is not notable. Fans regard types of character that have secret identities to be notable. Fans value the characters and the characters value their secret identities. The roles of the secret identities mentioned are important aspects of characters. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=clark+kent+cosplay&tbm=isch Yes there is play involved with these characters but fans still take note. Gregkaye (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can't prove a negatove. People wanting to keep an article have to show why it is notable, one can't prove that something is not notable. And what is or isn't notable is thankfully not decided by fans, but by reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK then - you have to at least give specific indications as to why you think this article is not notable. Thankfully what is or isn't notable is not decided by issues like belief. There have to be clear arguments. Gregkaye (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fictional characters are notable, and the normal editing process can keep out those who are not notable or who do not have secret identities. Many of these are from comics, and have coverage in books and specialized websites which appear to be reliable sources, so sources exist to reference the article, if anyone doubts that Superman's secret identity as a reporter or Spiderman's secret identity as a photographer can be verified, and it can be verified that the secret identity is an important part of the whole fictional franchise . See for example "The Contemporary Comic Book Superhero" edited by Angela Ndalianis, Routledge, 2009 where in chapter 7 Greg Smitht says "The secret identity is one of the most persistent tropes in superhero comics..." and " Comics scholars have posited a wide range of explanation for this continuing presence of the secret identity." The chapter also lists earlier fiction which featured a secret identity such as "The Count of Monte Cristo," The Scarlet Pimpernel," "Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," and "The mask of Zorro." It then lists Superman's Clark Kent, Daredevil's Matt Murdock, Iron Man's Tony Starks, Flash's Barry Allen, The Atom's Ray Palmer, and Batman's Bruce Wayne. The guideline cited as a basis for deletion says that "minor characters in Dilbert" is an acceptable list. I maintain that these alter egos of notable fictional characters are also suitable for a standalone list. Edison (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The characters are notable, that is not under discussion. Secret identities are a notable aspect of superheroes and the like. So your arguments are very valid, if this was an AfD for List of secrect identity personas of fictional characters. But please check the actual list under discussion, which is not what you are arguing for, but a list of one characteristic of these personae. Fram (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The secret identities are more humdrum and placid than the superhero or supervillain personnas. Their professions or characteristics are of encyclopedic importance (at least by "minor characters in Dilbert" standards as apply to Wikipedia). That is why "super-x" needs "mild mannered-y". "The Wolfman" in his everyday life was not Count Dracula. The Scarlet Pimpernel was not Mr Hyde. It would have been bizarre, like a mild mannered photographer having a secret identity as a mild mannered reporter, or Superman being secretly Batman, or Underdog being secretly Mighty Mouse. The contrast was important to the success of the fictional franchises, as noted by the ref and others one finds at Google Book search. Edison (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It starts an AFD off on the wrong foot when the nominator cites a guideline and claims it is a policy. It helps if you explain how this list violates the guideline, which says, for example, that a list of minor characters from Dilbert is an acceptable list. Edison (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this comment down, please don't insert your comments out of chronological order, certainly not when it is obviuos that you are arguing for a different list than what is at AfD. Fram (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR if nothing else, should justify pointing out right at the top of an AFD the nominator's false claim that a policy calls for deletion when a guideline is being cited, and that without any explanation or justification. The AFD is defective if such a false claim is made in the nomination with any correction buried at the end of a long block of text, and such an error could be a basis for deletion review if the article were deleted. And you are wrong claiming that I am discussing some other list. I am perplexed that it is so "obviuos" to you that I don't even know what article the AFD is about. Edison (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were discussing this list, then most of your arguments were totally irrelevant: " The fictional characters are notable, and the normal editing process can keep out those who are not notable or who do not have secret identities. " That the characters are notable is not under discussion. " it can be verified that the secret identity is an important part of the whole fictional franchise . " So? Not under discussion. "Greg Smitht says "The secret identity is one of the most persistent tropes in superhero comics..." and " Comics scholars have posited a wide range of explanation for this continuing presence of the secret identity."" have no bearing on why this list of occupations is in any notable and keep-worthy. Finally, most damning, is your conclusion: " I maintain that these alter egos of notable fictional characters are also suitable for a standalone list." The topic of the list is not "alter egos of notable fictional characters". Fram (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, please do the following. Take a moment to consider the various people that you know and what they do. Then take a good look at the list and ask yourself any of the following questions. Is it not notable that there are four business magnates, four reporters and three lawyers on a relatively short list? Is it not notable that there are two aristocrat types on the list so far but both of them are amongst the first of the characters with secret identities to be have been conceived? Is it not notable that the only office clerk comes from a type of spoof superhero movie? Other similar questions can be asked and I'd consider the answer to all these questions as a certain yes. Also Edison's arguments were relevant. They clearly demonstrate that there are people who take note of things such as the items in the list. That was enough. For whatever reason you also did not to respond to the contents of Edison's last post. Please consider the content contained here. Gregkaye (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: As a nominator, I have to answer this (and other) comments. First of all, it is not true that I claimed that the policy calls for an article to be deleted if the guideline is not followed. I said nothing of a kind. I said that this article (in my opinion) does not follow the guideline, that the inclusion criteria is not properly defined, and that I think those are the reasons to delete the article. I never said that the article has to be deleted if the guideline is not followed. My opinion is that this article (list) should be deleted because the inclusion criteria is quite stupid. First of all, there are millions of fictional characters, many of them have some "secret personas", but there is no precise criteria to define "secret persona", especially in fictional characters. There are no reliable sources that cover this kind of list, and so I doubt it's notability. The fact that the list contains many famous people is totally irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. For example, I can make a "list of actors whose mothers' middle names starts with 'j'". That list would certainly include many famous and popular actors, but would be totally useless, as this one is. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your actual comment was that "the inclusion criteria is very vague" while the inclusion criterial was actually very specific. Your point now is that the criteria is not properly defined. User: postdlf had already made a similar point (below) in mentioning a perceived lack of a threshold for inclusion. Because of the positioning of entries I did not see your comment until now and apologise for my slow reply. Responses to issues raised are presented below but for now I should mention that I have changed the criteria from a previously used set of specific criteria to a new set of specific criteria. This is not to say that I think there was anything wrong with the old set. I very much doubt that the page would grow to any great size but if it did it would be easy to edit it down with an application of the new set of criteria. The criteria states that: Requirements for inclusion in these list further include: [1]characters having made regular and substantial contributions to given story lines (supporting characters being excluded) [and 2] occupations that play a substantial part in the characterisation of secret identity persona. With or without these additional criteria I can't think of any specific characters that fits into either the General fiction or Science Fiction categories. In General fiction the Lone Ranger is described as a former Texas Ranger so even he doesn't comply. In Science fiction the only characters whose eligibility for the list is found in reliable sources and which I knew are [1] : Connor MacLeod who spent significant time in the film Highlander as antiques dealer Russell Nash, [2] The Doctor from Dr Who who spent a large part of two (~50 min) episodes having been changed into human form as school teacher John Smith and [3] The Master, again from Dr Who, who spent most of an episode similarly changed and taking the role of scientist Professor Yana. In Science fiction I can also think of various incidental characters that appear in the Men in Black comics and movies. Given the context of a list that included lead characters like the Scarlet Pimpernel and Superman I doubted that anyone would bother with incidental characters but, all the same, I thought it would be worth modifying the criteria just to keep these bases covered. Gregkaye (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nearly all superhero characters created over the 75 year history of the genre have secret identities. I see no meaningful threshold for inclusion here that would prevent this from sliding into listing nearly every superhero character (and keep in mind that even when subdivided by publishing company, we still have to subdivide further by letter because there are so many), and even limiting to notable ones (i.e., those with standalone articles) would be ridiculously long and just duplicate other lists organized by the ways we expect them to (by company, by fictional team, by power, etc.). Another concern is that grouping them by occupation or "role" may violate WP:SYNTH, because it is making comparisons between characters that reliable sources have not necessarily made and that may or may not be meaningful, but instead purely coincidental and superficial at best. Sometimes writers actually did some research into what went into depicting a job, sometimes not. Sometimes it had a significant impact on the character's narrative, sometimes not. Note also that not all superheroes who have "civilian" lives depicted (careers apart from crimefighting) have secret identities, yet the creator of this list has equivocated the two distinct concepts (e.g., She-Hulk has a civilian life as a lawyer but her "real" identity of Jennifer Walters is not secret). It is probably possible to write a prose article on the topic of superhero secret or civilian identities, or the depiction of various occupations in comics, if sources can be found analyzing and commenting on that, with examples given where sources point to them as examples, but an unbounded list such as this can't work. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that I was presuming the list was or could be limited to just superhero fiction, which would make it better (though not salvageable, as I explained); the list's creator obviously has no such intention, adding everything from the Highlander to the Doctor alongside whatever random superhero characters he has thought of so far. This list is pure OR and truly indiscriminate in conception and execution. postdlf (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf. This has potential to be an unmanageable mess which is already starting to be realized, and the listing by occupation intead of by character makes the list useless. --Finngall ^talk 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~comment~~ ~~change of mind, delete~~ again change mind I registered "keep" above (and take out following strike through) Even if someone were to consider all superheros for the list (which, even if permitted, i have no certainty that anyone would be likely to do) I suspect that the list would not be excessively long. First we might look for characters with pseudonyms and this instantly excludes characters like Thor, Emma Frost and a number of characters of alien origin. Then we might look for characters that have secret identities and as far as I am aware this would exclude the likes of the fantastic four, Professor Xavier, Captain America, Wolverine, J'onn J'onzz and any character that is discovered by the system before before they don mask and spandex. Then we need to look for characters that play a regular role within their secret identities that isn't centrally about being a superhero. This would rule out characters in full-time hero situations including many of the X-men, Avengers and Wildcats and other characters in publicly or privately funded groups. As you note there are also characters that have not got to a stage of character development that details their non super role in society and perhaps these kind of characters should be discounted anyway. Furthermore I doubt that there would be any great impetus to add characters that have been long out of print to the lists. Out of interest I added the character Raven but once I saw it in print it was obvious that it was related to a different time from other characters in the list and I could not be bothered to go further. And even if contributors were driven to include every superhero with a secret identity with a defined role, I still don't think the list would be excessively long. Yes the Marvel list of characters goes on for several pages but, in these listings, each character is afforded an average of about 180 words in the character descriptions attached to the "list" and furthermore only a small proportion of the characters of the Marvel list fit the criteria used here. The list here is mainly composed of names and links. As noted superheros are listed by company, by fictional team, by power, etc. I'm proposing that something about the characters back story might be included in that etc. and with this in mind we can note that one of the most commonly used getting to know you questions is "what do you do?" Its a question that can usually be answered quite succinctly. Thanks for your input on She-Hulk. I had assumed that if the secrecy of the Clark Kent identity could be preserved by a pair of glasses then changes from an expanded muscular form, green skin and an enraged personality would have done the same for the mild mannered Jennifer Walters. I'm still curious to know whether it wasn't at a later stage that her secret identity was blown but for now I presume it's best to remove her from the list. Another possible use for information in the article could be under a title such as "list of civilian occupations of super powered characters". Even so it still may be of use to restrict the scope of the article. In its talk page I have suggested the placement of three limitations to the scope of the lists involving [1] characters that consistently make central contributions of given story lines, [2] characters first published in English or characters that have gained a widespread publication in English, and [3] characters in film and literature from any any time or characters that have appeared in comics within the modern age of comic books spanning from the mid 1980s to the present. Please comment either here or in that talk page. Gregkaye (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry chaps that it took some time to see the validity of postdlf's argument. In my view it was the first negative argument here to carry weight but should have recognised this more quickly. Any advice that can be given as to how to use asimilar content with a meaningful threshold will be gratefully received. Gregkaye (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per postdlf. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like postdlf said, there are fundamental issues that I'm not sure can be solved. Most importantly, the inclusion criteria is unmanageably wide. If there is academic interest, common careers can be covered in secret identity. A list this indiscriminate really does no good, and there's no evidence that it satisfies WP:LISTN. Some editors may find it interesting, but that's not a notability guideline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have removed a very lengthy coment by Carriearchdale, which was placed in the middle of another discussion and completely ruined the chances of seeing who said what, when, and in reply to who. This was her comment, which started by repeating part of a post I made with additional "comment" and bolding added by Carriearchdale (without any indication that she did this), and which after her post (mainly reprints of comments by others) repeated without context a discussion between Edison and me as well, all of it with very strange timestamps (it makes no sense to have "today" as the date...). Feel free to reinsert the comment at an appropriate place and in an appropriate format, but this was plainly disruptive. Fram (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: now that we are busy with this article anyway, can someone please tell Carriearchdale that her edit to the article really is not an improvement? She doesn't seem to accept comments from me. Fram (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Carriearchdale ciao!!! This outrageous, frankly shocking, and quite appalling behavior by fram during this afd discussion must be stopped. frams platitudes and directions to others in this afd discussion have gotten to the point where fram is exhibiting disruptive behavior here, and is being misleading to all the discussers here by his actions during this afd! If these behaviors he has been exhibiting here do do not stop immediately, I would possibly have to decribe many of his actions here bullying and being totally disruptive, and do please make note that fram is not helping to improve this discussion here with his misleading tactics.
My post that I made earlier was REVERTED by frm!!! During an Afd??? fram reverts a succinct and well written post that showed my opinion and or vote of KEEP or Speedy keep??? apparently fram does not agree with my vote to keep. ciao!!!Carriearchdale (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not remove your "speedy keep" !vote. I noted quite clearly what I reverted (I'll leave the discussion of whether it was "succeinct and well written" to others). Fram (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment factual correction truth adjustment? what ever any user wants to use as the euphmism for misleading behavior. I said quote My post that I made earlier was REVERTED by frm!!! quote not what you have misleadingly stated here just now: quote *I did not remove your "speedy keep" !vote. I noted quite clearly what I reverted quote fram can just not handle the truth!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - After 12,000 edits here, I'd expect to know how to use appropriate formatting for your comments in a discussion;[1] please follow the standard bullet points and indenting that all other editors are using here. I would also suggest you copyedit for punctuation and not use histrionic capitalization and bolding as those issues also impair readability, and in an online forum convey a shrill tone. Finally, on your disagreement with Fram about her removal of your comment, you dumped a wall of text in the middle of the discussion that was nothing but a copy and paste of others' comments, again using poor formatting that just made a mess of everything. This was not a constructive or coherent addition to this discussion. postdlf (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Musings and suggestions (I hope you don't mind the unconventional post title).
Postdlf has helpfully observed that there is no meaningful threshold for inclusion involved in the article which leaves four possibilities: [1] delete the content, [2] work out some clear criteria that will provide a suitable threshold for content, [3] make a judgement that the content will not expand to unmanageable proportions despite a lack of threshold, [4] move content into contexts that have thresholds
In regard to [3] we can note that the section of the page regarding superhero related fiction only encompasses 20 lines of text and it already encompasses the majority of widely known superpowered characters that qualify. How large is the list likely to grow? In regard to [4] I see two options. [a] the article can be split and this action could either be taken now or in the future. The main possibility that I can see for this is that characters are divided according the time period of the character creation. For instance characters could be divided into articles related to the Golden Age of Comic Books, the Silver Age of Comic Books, the Bronze Age of Comic Books and the Modern Age of Comic Books. We may speculate that this may be notable in that it may provide an insight into differences in the writers ideals for their characters at different times.
That brings us to the other possibility. [b] As Philg88 suggested in the third post on this page: "The topic could be dealt with in a section in Secret identity". I have opened this idea up in the talk page of this discussion suggesting the title Sample of occupations and roles of secret identity personas. I have also removed the references to She-Hulk, Raven and both Students and staff at the Jean Grey School for Higher Learning and Students and staff at the New Charles Xavier School for Mutants. We can also note that "roles" only refers to the Scarlet Pimpernel and Zorro.
Personally I doubt that this article will expand out of all proportions but there seem to be other options open. Gregkaye (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the talk page of an AFD is not the place for making editing proposals about the article under nomination, but only for meta-discussions about the AFD itself (which are almost never necessary). On the substance of your comments, this all strikes me as original research by you: "the majority of widely known superpowered characters" is subjective and not a meaningful criterion, "this may be notable in that it may provide an insight into differences..." not only completely misunderstands what "notability" means in Wikipedia but also offers your own personal analysis or interpretation as to why this comparison of superhero "civilian" occupations is meaningful. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your main argument against the text seems to have been a fear that the article would grow in size almost exponentially because of a supposed lack of threshold. There is a threshold, not that I think that anyone would approach it, the limit of the possible information. How many entries (names and links) to superpowered characters do you think that would be? even before we may cut out older characters that have remained unpublished from the equation? "Original research" the list was based on pages like http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StockSuperheroDayJobs . I started by cutting the content down and checked through the entries but if checking content constitutes research then there is something wrong. Can you point to any listing entry that has not already been researched by Wikipedia? If so I will be happy for it to be removed and am more than happy to do that myself. WP:N states that "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" which carries with regard to the content presented. Perhaps you can specify why you think the content is not notable. There had better be a substantial reason because WP:IAR still applies. Gregkaye (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not arguing for deletion based on notability (though if I were, pointing to a TV Tropes page would not cut it as a rebuttal; do we even consider that site a reliable source?). And as you changed your !vote to "delete" above because, you said, of my arguments, I don't know what the disagreement is at this point, unless you have changed your mind again (based on...?). I think your best bet for moving forward would be to give up on this list and post a question at, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics about whether an article or article section on superhero civilian occupations might be feasible somehow, somewhere. Just offer the question, and see what other editors have to say, rather than continually raising new proposals every time a critical point is raised. The regular editors at that Wikiproject are not only very well versed in the subject matter, but also quite familiar with Wikipedia standards and practices. postdlf (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I changed my mind earlier in the context of two factors. 1] I was unaware of the rule WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and 2] out of respect to expressed viewpoints regarding perceived lack of threshold. I have responded to others and ask others to try to do the same. At this precise moment my jury is out regarding the viability of the current form of this article. You say that you think my best bet for moving forward would be to give up on this list. Based on what? you say I should ask questions. I've just added another one there. I previously asked others: 1] How many entries (names and links) to superpowered characters do you think that would be even before we may cut out older characters that have remained unpublished from the equation? 2] Can you point to any listing entry that has not already been researched by Wikipedia? I also added about notability and, yeh, you responded to that one.....> The content of the article, at least to its current extent, adds to Wikipedia. It brings an improvement to Wikipedia. As I had commented: Take a moment to consider the various people that you know and what they do. Then take a good look at the list and ask yourself any of the following questions. Is it not notable that there are four business magnates, four reporters and three lawyers on a relatively short list? Is it not notable that there are two aristocrat types on the list so far but both of them are amongst the first of the characters with secret identities to be have been conceived? Is it not notable that the only office clerk comes from a type of spoof superhero movie? Other similar questions can be asked and I'd consider the answer to all these questions as a certain yes. QUESTION: can you argue otherwise? The content has value and an expanded content would, in some ways, add further value. In this context my question becomes how can the content best be used? I respect your concerns on manageability but have asked if you had any perception regarding the potential extent of problems. This is the kind of thing that would be helpful in finding a way forward. Gregkaye (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out that this discussion was opened based on the belief that the subject article covers too broad a category. Shouldn't we be focusing on the given problem, and if, in fact, the list is not notable, open another discussion based on that problem rather than solving all of them in this one? I am Quibilia. (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not how AFD works. We discuss all issues, policies, and guidelines relevant to whether the article should be deleted or kept and are not constrained by the issues raised by the nomination. I don't think notability analysis is relevant either as this isn't about an already existing list, but rather uses the format of a list to try to index information together about notable subjects. So more relevant and useful are WP:LSC, as the nominator raised, and WP:IINFO, WP:LISTPURP, and WP:OR as I and others have at least implicitly raised. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for explaining that, I was under a different impression. I have rewritten my argument as such. I am Quibilia. (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue of threshold for inclusion has been mentioned and yet other articles have no threshold for inclusion and are still excepted. A relevant comparison is the List of superhero debuts which will accept all entrants regardless of whether the hero has a secret identity or whether that identity is has another occupation which is active at the concurrently with the activity of the alter ego. I also suspect that comic book lovers would be more motivated to indicate the actual existence of a character on this page than they would be to mention the job of the heros secret identity and yet the page on Information for "List of superhero debuts" indicates a Page length of just 64,498 bytes even though the page is heavily formated. Wikipedia's 10,000th largest page has ~95,419 bytes. I'd also cite a trend that I perceive in comic books against the concept of secret identities being used by heros on a day to day basis. With the plethora of superheros and superhero teams they don't tend to have so many relationships with non superpowered people. They don't have such a great need for a mild mannered alter ego as a protective cover for a loved one as they might have in the past. Gregkaye (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very quickly) Posdif considered that grouping characters by occupation or "role" may violate WP:SYNTH. If the grouping of characters under other categories such as characters from the 1950s doesn't break synth then nor does this. Gregkaye (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that the "roles" portion of the criteria has been removed (always the same anyway: to hide one's identity). What impact does the occupation have on a character's real career? Not much. Peter Parker may be the exception to the rule, as he has to make ends meet, and photographing himself gets a little tricky. As for the rest, you could mostly just switch jobs without having much effect. If Superman were a milkman, it wouldn't change his do-gooding a bit. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename List of secret identities of fictional characters. Simplifying the criteria would make it work. Occupation could be a secondary column. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would keep this intact with all the listings, not just the secret ones. The goal of an encyclopedia is to be useful to the readers in the way information in acomprehensive reference book is useful, and this information is so. It's not traditional encyclopedic information, which is irrelevant, as one thing we are definitelyNOT is a traditional paper encyclopedia, and the restrictions of earlier centuries do not apply to content any more than to technology. The old EB and its French and German forebears were oriented to the information an educated gentlemen (or someone who wanted to become one or pose as one) would want to know; later encyclopedias were oriented very strongly around the school curriculum. We're neither: our audience is everyone with an internet connection, gentleman or not, and tho we do not ignore the subjects schools teach, we cover everything education or not that anyone in this very broad audience would like to do and want information about. The limitations at NOT probably need to be re-visited a little--the founders were a little too modest. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You realise that WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL is a much shorter way of saying the same thing? Just trying to save you some time and effort the next time you want to make the same argument :-) Fram (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or more: Given the limited size and simple verifiability of the data in the list within this article, I can't see how delete would be a valid option. It's a pity that this list is extraordinarily poorly referenced, but the list is not so long as to invoke NOTSTATS in either context I don't see an argument for meeting LISTN, but it really doesn't matter, since I tend, for small lists, to prefer consolidation, and even a merged article would not approach WP:SIZE. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. !vote switched to Merge. As I see it, the crux of the issue here is whether this is a notable topic. Put another way has anyone written a book or academic paper on the subject of "occupations and roles of secret identity personas of fictional characters" or similar? No, they haven't, so it isn't a notable topic and doesn't belong in Wikipedia as a stand-alone list. Secret identity on the other hand, is such a topic, which is why this list should be included in that article. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main issue that has been dragging on and on has been that of criteria and yet a suggested merge would severely limit options of presenting clear page guidelines. For instance the talk page for the article would be shared with a range of related topics. The page has been criticised basis that it might get too big. Now its criticised that it is presently too small. Opponents of the article seem to be arguing with each other. Gregkaye (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Manuel Domínguez Rivas[edit]

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

Previously prodded under the title Alberto Rivas. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the subject has not played in a fully professional league. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garner significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Segunda Division is a professional league! Abcmaxx (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it is, but the highest division this player has participated in is the Segunda División B, which is not fully pro. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know he's still playing for Albacete Balompié, who are currently in the Segunda Division so surely that's the highest he's played in - besides Albacete are a professional team even if they do get relegated Abcmaxx (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were promoted this summer, meaning the player has yet to play a match in the Segunda División. And playing for a professional team doesn't confer notability; playing in a professional league does. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:25, 22 June 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 Pelham, New York. Closing this slightly early, as a clear consensus for a redirect has emerged in this discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pelhams, New York[edit]

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

No references or apparent significance. ɱ (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pelham, New York, which already covers the topic. Seattle (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pelham, New York. Topic lacks independent notability. The article has been unsourced for most of its 10-year existence; the main source it ever has had was a photo of a highway exit sign for "The Pelhams." A highway exit sign is not good evidence of notability. The proposed redirect destination is appropriate because it appears that all of the places called "The Pelhams" are part of the town of Pelham, and the article for the town mentions the habit of calling them "The Pelhams". --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP, plausible search term. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pelham, New York, per Orlady and Bearian. I've heard "The Pelhams" more than I've heard "Pelham". --Bejnar (talk) 16:55, 19 June 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 merged into Peekskill, New York. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depew Park[edit]

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

No sources or apparent notability. ɱ (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation of [2]. Seattle (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)~~ The site was created in June 2009, I'm sure they copied us. Seattle (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it seeing as the site has information on minor Peekskill locales that WP doesn't have, although I don't see where it says June 2009. Also, it should still be removed for my initially stated reasons.--ɱ (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources, dating back over nearly a century. [3],[4],[5]. Pburka (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources don't say much that makes the park notable. The first source says nothing about it except that it's in the "center of the village" (which isn't concrete fact and doesn't even appear true); the second source says nothing except a boy hanged himself there in 1984, which isn't very notable and appears to be largely insignificant. The third source only details that Depew gave the city its park and his supporters made a monument for him there. All of that information can and should be placed in the Peekskill article. There's not enough for Depew Park to warrant its own article.--ɱ (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're proposing a merge, I wouldn't object to that. Pburka (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a good plan.--ɱ (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution. I already merged the information to the Peekskill article so this just needs to be redirected. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 20 June 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 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LFH illuminating brands[edit]

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

Company does not seem very notable. The article is a stale, low quality WP:STUB. Discussions of move request on Talk page (3 participants) have been unanimous in favor of deletion. Previous prod indicating that the company has changed businesses (as well as its name), so the little information that is in the article is mostly incorrect anyway. BarrelProof (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage for WP:GNG, no other claim to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the company may have unrealised potential for notability, Design Week were a go to source for reliable industry info in the UK, but the page can be recreated if needed. Gregkaye (talk) 06:10, 24 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Coleman (politician)[edit]

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

A bit of a tricky situation here, so I thought it best to test for consensus on what to do. The situation is that earlier this year, Coleman was acclaimed as the winner of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2014 due to a lack of other declared candidates, and was thus slated to officially assume office as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador soon — and thus an article was created on that basis. However, earlier today he withdrew, with the result that he will not be taking office, and the leadership race is now back on. For our purposes here, what this means is that he technically no longer has a real claim of notability that would pass WP:POLITICIAN — and our usual practice for non-winning candidates in political leadership conventions is to give them only brief coverage in the article on the convention itself, rather than a full standalone WP:BLP, if they don't have any other substantive claim of notability besides the candidacy. (The fact that he technically did win the convention at first isn't a substantive claim of notability, either, since he didn't actually accede to the actual leadership.) Accordingly, my own preference would be to redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2014 — I don't believe that we need to retain a full standalone BLP, as a redirect to the election itself should be more than sufficient to serve our readers and provide what relatively little information we and they actually need about him anymore. However, there may be valid arguments to consider that it should be kept or deleted instead, so I wanted to test for consensus rather than redirecting it arbitrarily. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: If the subject was not "notable" by Wikipedia standards before or during the leadership race, only after being acclaimed the winner, than I would also say redirect to the leadership race article. Any info relevant to Coleman and the leadership race would probably be better served in that article as it's really his only claim of notability. Cmr08 (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my comments directly above as I may have been too quick in declaring this Coleman's only claim of notability. After further research, it's obvious to me that he does have some notability besides his political candidacy, but weather or not that is enough notability to warrant an article, I don't really know. It's kind of a confusing situation because I think there are good arguments on both sides of this issue, so I no longer want my "redirection" vote considered in the final decision. Cmr08 (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. We have ample coverage of his life before seeking office (even though the coverage of it largely came after). Being acclaimed at this level is noteworthy. We have a lot more content to create a good bio article than we do for most MHA's who are auto-kept. Redirecting to another article is inappropriate, because there's lots to say about him that doesn't belong anywhere else. --Rob (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use your imagination for a moment, to step five or ten years into the future. It's now 2024. Does anybody actually need to know anything substantive about Coleman anymore, considering that he's a WP:BLP1E who never actually assumed any public office that would make him of sustained encyclopedic interest to anyone? Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "needing" information was a criterion, than we'd delete 99.99% of what we have. What counts is that we have multiple independent (third party) reliable sources providing substantive information about him, that goes well beyond the mere fact he was an almost-premier. It's a huge mistake to lump Coleman in with the run-of-the-mill failed political candidate, where all the coverage of them was about the election, and there's little if any, bio information about them beyond candidate supplied mini-bios that media often publish. Coleman is a notable business man. Atlantic Business Magazine awarded him CEO of the Year for Atlantic Canada in 2010 (well before he had any political inkling). There was a writeup about Coleman Group of Companies; see Lopez-Pacheco (February 7, 2007). "A small company that has big ideas". National Post. p. SR4.. Using Proquest (through my local library), I find at least 14 articles mention both him and "Coleman Group" in the period before 2013 (no political angle). Unfortunately, in almost all cases, I can't read the full articles without going to the library. They seem to be about different deals he had, or use him for a noteworthy businessman's opinion on something. If he had never sought public office, we could have justified on article on him and/or Coleman Group (and could have one redirect to the other). Letting anybody who runs for office get an article, means literally anybody who's 18+ could get an article. But not everybody is a notable business leader. Coleman was not a random anonymous person who decided they wanted to be premier one day. Unfortunately, the Google is bias towards recentism, and gives the false impression that nobody heard of him, until he was a candidate for premeir. In fact, he was a notable person before. --Rob (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we deem premier-designate a notable position, people will want to know who he was. 117Avenue (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I agree with keeping the page or not, but I figured I would still give my input. The events surrounding Coleman I would say have been notable and it is not like this was just a story covered in NL, it got a fair bit of national coverage too. As well from what I've been seeing from political watchers and pundits, mainly through twitter, is that this appears to be the first time that someone who was going to be sworn in as a premier has quit. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content of the bio does not justify notability given he did not achieve premiership. (I am not a Newfoundlander) Canuckle (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you agree there are multiple independent sources providing substantial coverage of him? --Rob (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The second sentence of WP:POLITICIAN#1, together with WP:NOTTEMPORARY, means that should a person be elected to a notable office, but fails to take the office, keeps his article. 117Avenue (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might want to ponder the meaning and implication of the word "yet" in WP:POLITICIAN #1. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it means "has not", your comment suggests you believe it is the alternative, "will". Writing an article about someone who will become notable in the future requires a crystal ball. 117Avenue (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable for this person than any other business person. If we choose to keep this one than others who have tossed their hat in the ring in this leadership race and all other leadership races would also require an article in Wikipedia. HJKeats (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every businessman was president of "Atlantic Canada’s largest, family-owned independent grocery retailer."[6] or was "named Atlantic Canada’s CEO of the year by Atlantic Business Magazine in 2010."[7]. --Rob (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who tosses their hat in the ring is declared elected, a requirement for politician notability. 117Avenue (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Our Special Guidelines for Politicians are crafted to prevent an endless stream of spammy campaign bios for every pol in every race worldwide; and to prevent self-serving bios of minor local pols in low level political posts. This is not a city council member from Pineapple Bluff, Arkansas here, this is a person who was designated a provincial premier and who stepped down before assuming the post. He remains a historical figure for that region of Canada and easily passes GNG; he should not be subjected to some artificial high bar which we have used by consensus to curb spam. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect really just a 1EVENT BLP, yes he had a life, but is still 1EVENT. --Bejnar (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When you say "he had a life", you're missing the point that there are multiple substantial independent sources covering that life, which satisfy WP:GNG. If he hadn't have sought office, there would be little dispute in having an article on him. So, far I haven't heard anybody dispute that he meets WP:GNG. --Rob (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a tough one because of the unusual circumstance of his resignation before taking office. This does, on the face of it make him notable for one only event. However, counterbalancing that is that he was elected/acclaimed as the leader of a major political party. Coverage about him prior to his foray into politics is much sparser, but not non-noexistent (for example: [8]). Coverage of the leadership race, and especially the surprise resignation was significant and was not limited to local coverage. Based on the preceding reasons, I am recommending keep. At the very least, a redirect to Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador leadership election, 2014 would make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage to pass GNG. Also, people who become actually designated to take an office should generally be treated as notable if the office confers such, this is a lot different than candidates who failed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 26 June 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. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Rider[edit]

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

Two sentence band article. No assertion of notability, no independent sources other than music reviews. Pro-forma notice of existence is not evidence of notability, and 'it exists' does not justify a Wikipedia article. Google search shows no signifigant coverage. Revent (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The article already contains links to independent reviews of this artist's work in reliable sources ([9], [10], [11]) which show that the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC are met. — sparklism ^hey! 15:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but can somebody write something about them?) Also coverage in MusicOMH[12], Drowned in Sound[13], The Quietus[14], Record Collector[15], AllMusic[16], Chicago Reader[17]. This coverage satisfies WP:BAND and WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Music reviews are merely pro-forma notice that something exists, and not significant coverage. You'll note that WP:NMUSIC does not say 'Has been widely reviewed'. Specifically, a review is coverage of a particular album, and generally trivial. It is not coverage of the band itself, and doesn't show that they are notable. It is somewhat silly to suggest that Wikipedia cover every band that has ever received a music review. I'm not saying that a better article about the band could or should not exist at some date, but at this point there seem to be no sources about them on which to base an article. Revent (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sammoutis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he played a pre-season friendly for Millwall, and is signed to a Cypriot First division club. This does not confer notability. WP:NSPORT applies only to competitive matches, and explicitly excludes players who have signed but not played for a fully pro club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garner significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fails WP:NFOOTY, no other claim to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gisa Adler[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced. No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable individual. The only sources returned by Google are passing mentions on genealogy websites. Nothing significant found from independent reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 03:31, 17 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 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG fails and the only reference isn't notable. $AHLM13$ talk 11:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete she is mentioned in a couple of books, albeit in passing, which is more than most music teachers get. --Bejnar (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is a nice effort by a former student, but fails WP:GNG and all listed categories, alas.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rey-Phillip Santos[edit]

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

Was an PROD but it got removed, so AfD is "the next step". As PRehse said: non-notable MMA fighter or actor. I did myself a quick Google search and couldn't find anything to display notability. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes the reasons for my original PROD were based on notability and lack of references. I was surprised that all the MMA information was removed from the article which makes the subject even less notable (do I revert that for the AfD?).Peter Rehse (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more checking and his name does come up as an MMA fighter - but it is not clear it is the same person.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show notability as an actor or martial artist. Only reference is a link to IMDB, which is certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:44, 22 June 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 Ghostface Killah. Report to RFPP or my talk page if the redirect gets reverted. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Laps EP[edit]

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

An EP containing various remixes of the same song with only minimal and insignificant coverage found, all in anticipation/promotion of an album that has apparently never been released. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom since Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has been trying to redirect this, reverted without commentary and without the addition of anything like a reference--so I assume this AfD is an attempt to get the community to enforce their earlier redirect. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With the lack of significant coverage for what is essentially a maxi-single (EPs usually contain different songs), deletion is well within reason. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghostface Killah per nom. No notability, little content. Expansion highly unlikely. --Bejnar (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lincoln[edit]

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

Lack of notability, his involvement in Atwater v. Lago Vista is not enough to warrant an article of his own. Also has some WP:BLP issues. KDLarsen (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has so many BLP issues, that we need to delete it expeditiously. I will remove the NPOV violating language before that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biography of one notable event. Major BLP problems. Not finding significant RS coverage. Just passing mentions related to the subject's involvement in the birther movement and lots of hits on activist websites. Fails WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Fourth Wave Feminism[edit]

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

Recent discussion on the talk page between me and Tutelary generated two suggestions as to what to do with the page, now that half the History section has been removed: Get rid of the rest and write a new article on the bikini bridge; Recast the article as "2014 4chan Anti-Feminism Operations". Both suggestions would probably end us up here anyway, so I think we should come here now and 'get it out the way'. It would help gain a wider hearing. Laun chba ller 19:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As one of the people having participated on the talk page, I found this page while patrolling on WP:HUGGLE and reverted the IP user blanking content. Then, I've reviewed the article and found a bunch of errors as well as original research connecting '4chan hoaxes' to this operation. Only two sources mention 'Operation Fourth Wave Feminism' explicitly; Daily Dot and Jezebel. While reliable, the other sources mention it in the context of a 4chan hoax and not apart of 'operation fourth wave feminism'. It relies on the other sources, which make no mention of the topic specifically at hand to attempt to meet the general notability guideline. Two sources do not an article make. In addition, you can view the other section 'free bleeding' in this diff, which I removed because it was original research to the connection at hand. Daily Dot mentioned it briefly but did not say that it was apart of "Operation fourth wave feminism". All in all, I believe that because of the majority of sources do not explicitly mention 'Operation Fourth Wave Feminism', in which sources are required to be related to the article's topic; I !vote that this article be deleted. Tutelary (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the creator of this article, it has been damaged beyond repair, given that you believe a tabloid falling for a 4chan hoax is now considered unreliable. Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bikini bridge affair might merit a mention on 4chan but this is less significant and there seems to be real questions over the reliability of sources. Certainly not enough coverage to be independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Carrerio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, most references are either photoshoot credits or similar, certainly nothing truly substantial enough in terms of establishing notability.. TheLongTone (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deb (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete one of many articles (re) created by PR agency. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails GNG, there is no other basis for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The cited references certainly provide verification that she exists, but are not substantive enough coverage about her to deem her notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 23 June 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. This is a combination ofa WP:SNOW delete and a speedy deletion as a repost of a page previosuly deleted by AfD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Allan Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Essentially promotional article (creator seems intent on adding articles on all people working for a certain Canadian agency): subject fails WP:GNG. Most refs are simply photoshoot credits, the most substantial is an article about a fashion show which has a short pare on him. TheLongTone (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article from The Globe and Mail, a national Canadian newspaper, profiles him as a successful expat working in the Fashion Industry in Milan. EditorialExpert (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)EditorialExpertEditorialExpert (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be accurate. He is mentioned a couple of times in an article about Canadian expats.TheLongTone (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one line credits are not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the argument for keeping this hasn't changed since the last time it failed AFD; it may well even qualify for a speedy on that basis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no evidence of notability. This is just another promotional page created by the same editor. Deb (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 June 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 Mark Ruffalo. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Coigney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating as she doesn't have any significant coverage, thus fails WP:GNG. She is notable for being Mark Ruffalo's wife. Not notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Although she is only notable due to her husband, WP:N is only a guideline, and if we delete every page we encounter based solely on the notability guideline, there would be a lot of holes in Wikipedia. These articles, Sachet Engineer, Perla Haney-Jardine, Yugi Sethu, Scott Sowers and Sibel Galindez, are BLPs of actors/actresses who have starred in less than three notable films. However, unlike Coigney, these actors/actresses respectively, do not hold any known relationships with those who the WP community deems notable (based on the guidelines of course). The articles I have listed are merely some of Wikipedia pages I have found on the actor-stub page. However, many of the actor-stubs contain valuable information that may benefit readers. Deleting all of these articles based on notability will also place a burden on editors, as a majority of the time, deleting articles leads to dead-links. GuyHimGuy (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if WP:N is "only a guideline" then why do we cite guidelines at all? She isn't notable. She was in 4 films and notability isn't WP:INHERITED. Not deleting her just so it doesn't create dead links isn't a legit reason to keep the article. What "valuable information" does she hold that users may find to their benefit? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dead-links created by merely deleting the article in question wouldn't be a problem. However, there are many actor-stubs created each and every day, such as the ones I have posted in the above argument. These actors, by common sense, are less notable than Sunrise Coigney. These articles passed the afc process, despite them completely failing the basic notability guideline (find one article by an independent source that even mentions Scott Sowers, Perla Haney-Jardine or Sibel Galindez; all of whose pages I have read and/or edited on WP. I am a big movie junkie; I saw Perla Haney-Jardine in Untraceable, but little did I know she was the same little girl from Kill Bill. She's notable through common sense-starring as supporting characters in three major films; yet she fails WP's notability guideline for not a single independent article, book or website mentions her name. Kimberly J. Brown: Once a Disney star turned small-scale actress; besides the short biography on IMDB and an informal interview conducted by a high school newspaper, there isn't a single reliable online website mentioning her name.

Of course Wikipedia's policies are vital to the integrity of the project, but some of them, such as WP:IINFO and WP:N, simply act as barriers to readers. True information is true information. It doesn't matter if the majority of readers aren't interested on Sunrise Coigney's personal life, or which other movies Frannie's mom from In the Cut was in; someone always will. Wikidata doesn't seem to hold an in-depth summary regarding the personal lives of Sunrise Coigney, Scott Sowers or Sibel Galindez; neither does the internet. All those actor-stubs, along with their histories, deleted based on N and IINFO. When a car has a single flat tire, but at the time the owner is without a spare, is it more ethical to dispose of it or wait until it can be fixed? Can't we simply ignore the problem for now, stamp the notability template on the top of the article in question, and wait until she does something to better fit WP's notability standard. If not, why? Thanks! GuyHimGuy (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She was only active for 4 years, being in 4 films that she's not known for. She's not going to just all-of-a-sudden have articles start publishing stories about her. You stated "there isn't a single reliable online website mentioning her name", and it's Wikipedia's job to make sure there is? No. That's not how that works. If she were notable, yes, but she isn't. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my vote. GuyHimGuy (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Ruffalo as she is a plausible search term but doesn't yet have enough independent notability to warrant an article. I should also mention that WP:ONLYGUIDELINE is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions as it's essentially an (unconvincing) excuse to be dismissive towards them. It also underestimates and overlooks the insight and value that guidelines bring. No prejudice against future recreation of article once independent notability is established, though. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Ruffalo - Fair compromise. Any method that doesn't delete the article and its history is fine. But what are we going to do with the other actor related articles that fail to meet the notability guideline?; there are hundreds of them. GuyHimGuy (talk) 02:36, 19 June 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 22:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Telecom[edit]

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

I did find two additional, minor articles, [18] and [19]. So unless the shirt sponsorship and the press it generated, such as [20] and [21], is sufficient to meet WP:GNG, the company does not meet WP:COMPANY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 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 19:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company founded a few years that only recently moved to Dallas in September. I live in the Dallas-area and I have never heard of them and this must be why. Searches reveal nothing else from the past years aside from this Colorado Rapids sponsorship. Not much to write an article here. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 16 June 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. —SpacemanSpiff 15:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Sinha[edit]

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

Fails criteria for WP:DIRECTOR. (Note: Subject is probably the creator of the article.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:03, 9 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 19:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -It seems the three films are within the past 3 years (2012, 2013 and 2014) with attention by news links including Times of India but there isn't anything for a significant article. Additional news searches including at Times of India found nothing else. A young aspiring film director with three short films under his belt. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable per nom (fails WP:DIRECTOR). The Times of India and The Avenue Mail are reliable sources, Venture Den probably isn't but its citation only contains a passing reference to Shubham. All of these references centre around his short film Poison, which leads to a notability failure as he is notable only for a single event. Nothing else found on Google. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Nice job of references, but way WP:Too soon. --Bejnar (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hed Kandi. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Cool[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 09:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 9 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 19:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete as it seems it has never received significant news sources and they're mostly compilations of notable artists. It also appears that Hed Kandi may be non-notable also so I plan to nominate that one after a thorough search. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like Nu Cool is a compilation series of Hed Kandi. I suggest we merge this to Hed Kandi.--Laun chba ller 07:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyddonism[edit]

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

This is non notable quazi-religion. Google search returns just 6 hits ([22]), all of them some internet forums and so, no reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently lacks entirely reliable sources.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tiny sect; stub can't be sourced. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established.--Staberinde (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, Book of the art and the craft not found anywhere. Apparently he either published it late in life after 1986, or he failed to file a copyright copy with LC. --Bejnar (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pindus. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metsovo (mountain range)[edit]

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

The whole point of this article is to prove that Metsovo is the same mountain as Pindus, but in that case we don't need two articles on the same subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We can't be sure, but..." delete per WP:FORK and WP:SYNTH. Ethnic soapboxing? Bearian (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pindus (or keep if there is sourceable argument about the identification). The nominator's argument is not one for deletion but, in the presence of reliable sources and the absence of information from the other article on the subject, one at most for merger. And the reliable sources do seem to be there - though the fact that the article is a direct translation from Greek Wikipedia, complete with the original mostly Greek sources but without the original article's Wikification, somewhat obscures this. And the "we can't be sure" quoted by the other contributor here so far is applied specifically in reference to whether John Tzetzes made the identification in the twelfth century - we can be as sure as we can be of anything found on GBooks that John Cam Hobhouse wrote, "the latter mountains, now known by the name of Metzovo, can be no other than Pindus itself" (the version currently in the article is presumably a retranslation from a Greek translation - I'll replace and cite it properly). The information that a mountain range at least approximating to the Pindus was formerly known as Metsovo should be in Pindus, and probably also in Metsovo, with citations. PWilkinson (talk) 12:50, 21 June 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) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Cooked Chips[edit]

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

In fact unsourced promo. No independent, reliable sources to prove that it is really the creation of Heston Blumenthal. The Banner talk 17:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have read full article, unfortunately I didn't find any reliable source to back up the notability of subject. Hence non-notable A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It is easy to find sources which testify to the notability of the topic. For example, 'Triple cooked chips' of celebrity chefs blamed for surge in chip pan fires. And the article contains a clear citation of The Times, which is a journal of record, in support of Blumenthal's claim. The editors above don't seem to have read the article with sufficient care and attention and so the nomination should be dismissed immediately. Andrew (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, this is not the first time I see hasty statements from you in AfDs, and again it is related to the concept of "speedy keep". I strongly suggest that you read WP:Speedy keep, since you invoke it so often--and if you do, you will see that you really only have one, maybe two options: either you're going to claim that The Banner is a banned editor, or they're a vandal. No matter what The Times verifies, this is not a case for speedy keep. In addition, it's relatively easy to find citations that mention the supposed inventor and his fries, but whether, as the nominator claims, the newspaper and Google Books hits (many of which from fairly unreliable publications) actually prove the invention, that's another matter. From what I can tell it's a fairly unspecific claim repeated uncritically and all over the place. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant clause of WP:SK is 2e which states, "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". My !vote was initially a Keep but I upgraded it to Speedy Keep when I found the text of the article included a quotation from The Times in support of Blumenthal's claim. The nomination statement that there are no sources in support of the claim is therefore erroneous. In any case, the issue is too minor to warrant a deletion nomination because triple-cooked chips obviously exist as a culinary phenomenom and there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as tagging the article for improvement or discussion on its talk page. Such nominations ought to be tossed out immediately per WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have not properly read the nomination. The Banner talk 09:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies In browsing sources for the topic, I came across a reference to thrice-cooked bacon! That's in New York but I'm thinking that, when Wikimania comes to London in August, we should arrange some meals for food-project members. A good local place to get triple-cooked chips, for example, is Hawksmoor... Andrew (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether these chips should stay or go, but whoever took that foodporn photo of them is worth their money in bacon. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reliable sources are not hard to come by. A search on Google Books gets you pages and pages of relevant results. Antrocent (♫♬) 00:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but those sources are still not reliable to judge notability. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 05:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is easy to find more sources, as noted above. For example:

Andrew (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - These are convincing references: if the Sunday Times says "Arguably his most influential culinary innovation is triple-cooking the humble chip", it's hard to argue that it's not his invention. This doesn't mean it qualifies as speedy keep: at the most you could argue that Banner's "BEFORE" wasn't so great. Andrew, I'm quite serious about this point and I urge you to exercise more good faith. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It still does not say that he invented it. Somebody else might have come with the idea, after which Blumenthal perfected it. But perfecting something does not mean that you are the creator. But the article has now Blumenthal-related sources and a passing mention with a recipe. The Banner talk 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of good sources to pass GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been found to prove its notability. Dream Focus 09:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Questions of who created it are independent from notability, and are a matter for article talk page debates, edit wars, etc. There are plenty of sources indicating this is a notable foodstuff. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received adequate coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 18 June 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 The Demonata#Narrators. Nothing here appears worth merging (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kernel Fleck[edit]

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

Overlong 'biography' of fictional character which consists entirely of plot resumes. TheLongTone (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails under WP:BN as for as the notability of the book is concerned to which this character belongs. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to the book or series in which nhe appears. I suspect that the articles on the series could usefully be merged inot a single article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 22 June 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 Loughbrickland. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loughbrickland Primary School[edit]

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

NN defunct primary school that provided education for children ages 3-11. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loughbrickland per nom and SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Nothing here worth keeping. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AFD that all but the most exceptionally noteworthy primary schools are assumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus as documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Davey2010 says Nothing here worth keeping, and I agree, but he would still redirect it. --Bejnar (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: - There's nothing of value in the article hence redirect would be a better option .... Redirect isn't a Merge you know ... Also voting Delete just because of my comment alone is rather silly too! –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have voted "delete" on primary schools for a long time. --Bejnar (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is the accepted way to go for such pages and has been demonstrated by the 100s of primary schools in the 'R from school' cat over many years. Although individual, poorly subscribed AfDs might occasionally close as 'delete', IMO attempts to change that well founded precedent through the back-door of ~~AfC~~ AfD would be a lot of hard work and would not be appropriate. RfC would be the solution, but that's been tried many, many times... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large issue. From what I've seen at 100s of such AfDs, the clearest consensus that has been demonstrated is that the stand-alone article should not stand. There appears to be a split between those who favor delete (some of whom question the value of a link to an article that imparts near-zero information about the school; they often hold sway at even well-subscribed AfDs) and those who favor redirect (some of whom point to our leaning to save something out of the ashes). As to consensus, consensus can change ... and if we are basing our view of consensus on what the common outcome is at AfDs, it strikes me that perhaps AfDs may be a logical place to look for the answer as to what current consensus is. Epeefleche (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure if Kundpung was replying to me ? ... If so - I've already voted Redirect, and it seems Consensus is to Redirect which is absolutely fine with me :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

INewsletter[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a non-notable product. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 15:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability for this software product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gongshow talk 17:56, 21 June 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. At any rate, no consensus to delete, but I think that continued discussion over whether this could be merged might be fruitful. Sandstein 11:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP visual styles[edit]

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

The documentation of the various themes in XP is given only by primary sources; while the nature of XP's theme is described in the main article, there's no source that requires a separate article to break down each included theme, particularly as there's no comparison or constract between the themes given which would require secondary sources. MASEM (t) 15:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Masem Werieth (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Nomination seems more a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The article includes multiple secondary sources and is the result of several similar articles being combined as well as splitting of content from Windows XP. The aim here seems to be the removal of several images that provide a visual comparison of the different visual styles. The article itself is encyclopaedic. I see no reason why it should be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources are secondary. They document the existence of the themes, but make no further comment on them, making them primary. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me? Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. The following sources are used in the article:

"Tweak Windows XP :: Disabling Themes". TechReviewer.com. Archived from the original on August 1, 2012. Retrieved 26 May 2012.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Desktop-Enhancements/Themes/Royale-Theme-for-WinXP.shtml
"Royale Noir: secret XP theme uncovered - istartedsomething" (Press release). October 29, 2006. Retrieved 2008-08-22.
Orlowski, Andrew (2001-02-16). "Compatibility woes derail Windows XP Visual Styles". The Register. Situation Publishing. Retrieved 2014-06-16.
Jijau, Dragos (2007-01-18). ""Hack" Windows XP Visual Styles". Softpedia. SoftNews NET. Retrieved 2014-06-16.
Fitzpatrick, Jason (2008-09-30). "How to Use Custom Windows Visual Styles". Lifehacker. Gawker Media. Retrieved 2014-06-16.

None of those are primary sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They make no attempt to compare or contrast the specific themes; that type of transformation is required for an article to be considered secondary for a topic per WP:PSTS. An tech article that explains how to switch themes is not secondary about themes. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your assertion is incorrect. They all constitute secondary sources according to PSTS. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These articles do not fit this requirement: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" And because these are clearly not tertiary, they are primary. Third-party primary, but primary nevertheless. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Third-party primary" is a contradiction. By definition, a third-party source is entirely independent of the subject being covered. A first-party source is a primary source. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are ones that reiterate information without comment or transformation. Most newspaper articles covering worldwide news are third-party, primary sources - they aren't the originators of the information, but they aren't transforming the information. The same is true here - these sources identify XP themes (including specific ones) exist, but make no further comment on specific themes. Some may be secondary about the concept of theming XP, or as CL suggests belong, the general look of XP compared to previous versions, but these individual themes lack secondary sources for a separate article written and illustrated in this manner. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I would prefer, in the tradition of Windows Aero, re-doing this article to be about the overall visual design of Windows XP. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article should certainly be expanded to do that, which is a reason for keeping it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an acceptable solution if it can be shown the XP non-classic theme is notable as it owns, but this still would not require iterating through each of the variations in color from that theme (we don't do that for Aero, for example). --MASEM (t) 00:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable I think and that is the primary item we should be assessing here. Windows XP had a very different visual style than previous versions of Windows and while this article doesn't cover that currently, it could be expanded in that direction. I don't know for sure, its been a long time, but if I recall there was quite a bit of third-party coverage of that. On the note of primary vs secondary, I would also agree that the sources in this article are secondary sources generally. A compare and contrast between the themes would be nice if we can find a source for it. Personally, I'm sure one exists somewhere. I would keep and improve this article. Zell Faze (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Features new to Windows XP". Hi. I understand that although Masem is not the best writer when it comes to composing xFD or NFCR, his judgment is often far more sound. In this case, the assessment of "none of the sources are secondary" is entirely wrong; 6 out of the 10 footnotes provided as of Special:Diff/613162860 are secondary sources. But the article does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and has unreferenced claims. Merging with "Features new to Windows XP" solves the problem.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't support a merge. While the individual styles are new, visual styles were available in prior versions of Windows. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It covers all the hardware+software design for embedded system. Plus subject is notable and good coverage A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Certainly notable, Just perhaps needs more sources. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that Windows XP has themes is notable, but the individual themes are not shown to be that to require the breakout given. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wide coverage by reliable third-party sources. Also per ViperSnake151. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability requires coverage in secondary sources, which none of these are. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The community would seem to disagree with you on this. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources are secondary according to the definition you quoted in the discussion above at 17:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC). --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, they are not secondary sources. Just stating the existence of a theme is primary-source reporting. (There is a different between primary/secondary, and first-party/third-party). --MASEM (t) 14:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not the definition of primary sources, which are "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." A third party source that is not close to the event is not a primary source and, as I've already said, the community seems to disagree with your opinion on this. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        A tech reporter describing available themes in XP is "close to an event" (they are describing what they see) and thus is primary. And they certainly do not fit the definition of secondary. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That is not what is meant by close to an event. If you use that reasoning then EVERYONE in the world who has ever looked at Windows is a primary source. That includes Steve Jobs. A tech reporter describing available themes in XP is "an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources", so it's most definitely a secondary source. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You are describing the difference between a first-party and a third-party. The distinction between a primary and a secondary source is how the topic is discussed in the source - this is what WP:PSTS says. If you, as a third-party, says something exists, that's a primary source. If you, as a third-party, say that this exists but it is a worst option compared to something else for various reasons that are given, that is a secondary source. That is how we interpret these sources. This is a very common error that happens by editors that make the confusion that primary/secondary is the same as first/third-party. They are two different things. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        By your own reasoning, none of the sources listed above are primary sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, none of the sources expand on the mere existence of the theme. There is no analysis, criticism, or transformation of information, elements required for a source to be called secondary. They are primary, simply stating information without comment. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you actually looked at the sources? I guess not because this one, for example, compares different themes and discusses things such as "the 'Start' button's hover and active states". It doesn't simply identify the existence of the theme. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not anywhere close to a reliable source, being an SPS. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        See reply in the #comment after the notice. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: I'm quite agree with your reasoning. Theme is purely notable and is accepted by majority, good coverage in given sources plus in google search. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masem: To the contrary, almost all of the third-party sources cited in the article offer the analysis, criticism and/or transformation of information required to confirm them as secondary. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. The sources are secondary to the topic "How theming works on Windows XP" (eg as noted above, they are supporting an article that could be taken like Windows Aero). But the sources are primary to the topic "Specific themes of Windows XP", which is a far different concept, and unnecessary if no sources discussed the individual themes in any detail, which they don't. Now if someone wants to rework this article to be like the approach of the Aero article, that might be something but no one is stepping up to the plate to do that. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the sources are secondary to the topic of individual visual styles for Windows XP, in addition to being secondary to the topic of how visual styles work on XP. Consider, for example, these quotations from a small selection of the sources in the article:
    - "The bright colors of the "Luna" interface led to it being swiftly labeled a "Fisher-Price" or "Teletubby" operating system." –Ars Technica
    - "You would have noticed that the default themes of Windows have always contained unsaturated colors for different elements. This is especially so that you do not stress out your eyes." –Bright Hub
    - "Windows XP greets users with the new Luna interface, which looks a lot like Macintosh OS X and keeps most of Windows XP's complexity under wraps. [...] The Luna Start menu consists of two columns and emphasizes functions rather than individual programs. [...] The garish Windows XP theme has large buttons and rounded corners, which seem like an overeager attempt to make Windows look cooler than it really is." –PC Magazine
    - "The new Windows XP Zune theme is here, and it is hot. You might mentally compare this theme to Royale Noir, it does look a bit like it, but it's not." –Download Squad
    - As you can see, all of these reliable sources give their opinions and interpretations of the particular visual style(s) that they are discussing. Some of them compare one visual style against another, while others compare it to other operating systems' themes, as well as non-software user interfaces. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - These have all been added since the AFD, and I do agree these better source the concept of the themes better. But they weren't there at the start. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - More specifically to those that AussieLegend suggested were secondary (the main ones that had sourced the article then at AFD), these are in the right direction compared to the previous given ones. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of The Demonata characters. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grubbs Grady[edit]

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

Completely unsourced in-universe biog of fictional characte, all of which is essentially plot summary. Some of content could be merged to List of The Demonata characters, but this much detail is uneccessary. TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - I think it could be further improved given that he is the protagonist in several of the books. On a side note, Characters in The Demonata would be a bit too much I think. DJAMP4444 15:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable character. Characters receive separate pages either because they are culturally important beyond their role in a work (e.g. Prince Hamlet, Albus Dumbledore, Shaggy Rogers) or because there is important material that can't be included in the main article on the work/series/author for reasons of length, balance, or comprehensibility. There's no evidence that this character has received any attention from third-party sources to indicate any cultural importance or critical study. It would be more fitting to add a short bio either to the main article on the series, or possibly spin out character bios to Characters in The Demonata, but I think in the first instance, adding content to the main page is better. I don't suggest a merge because it shouldn't be merged as it stands (excessive plot detail). --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Got the list of characters article wrong, have corrected.TheLongTone (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, also per Colapeninsula. --Bejnar (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to The Demonata. We really cannot allow multiple articles on a fcitional franchise. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Capolei[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The UFL is not a fully professional league; thus, he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew
Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements garner significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 18 June 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) 00:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter McFadden[edit]

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

Never played in the pros. Meets neither WP:NGRIDIRON nor WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You might want to check again. He played in four games with the Raiders in 2010.[23]--Yankees10 16:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Stats linked to in the article confirm that McFadden played in the NFL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the nominator's reason has been shown to be factually incorrect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Windsor[edit]

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

Subject is seriously lacking in notability. What little notability there is, is in relation to another case entirely (the Maid of the Mist controversy. KDLarsen (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable. See the talk page: even this "major controversy" he was involved in ~~was~~ may have been one in a line of many. No RSs could be found, so fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this has 'attack bio' written all over it. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources don't support notability and have minimal mention of Windsor. The deleted section doesn't help the notability at all. At best this article is pure puffery. If any solid sources can be found about the Maid of the Mist stuff, put those details in the Maid of the Mist article. The sources that I can see in the current Windsor article aren't, to me, strong enough to warrant anything in the Maid article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:38, 23 June 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 Millennials. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

80's Babies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/80's Babies

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

This page is just a WP:DICDEF. It isn't an encyclopedia article, it just defines a term that ought to be on urbandictionary instead. Sairp (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Millennials.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is just a DICDEF and it doesn't have any realistic potential of expansion to become properly encyclopedic. Redirect to Millennials per Cyclopia, as it is a slightly plausible search term. Note also that the same creator also posted duplicate versions at Eighties Babies and 80's Baby, both by hijacking existing redirects to other topics — I've reverted both back to redirects, but both should be monitored nonetheless in case somebody attempts to evade this discussion by recreating them as separate articles again. Even this title, in fact, was actually a redirect to Pretty Ricky until this version was created — but it shouldn't be, because as near as I can tell, it was only ever the working title of an album that the band ultimately released under a different title, and millennials is by far the more likely target for anybody who would actually be searching on this title in 2014. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 25 June 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, nomination withdrawn. WP:Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buldana Urban Cooperative Credit Society[edit]

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

Notability concerns, borderline G11 candidate. Laun chba ller 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Times of India article and the chapter in Redefining Management Practices and Marketing in Modern Age are both strong indications of notability, as are the awards listed under "Awards and Achievements". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - the company is notable as evidenced by the sources discussed by Eastmain. However, this could easily be a promotional brochure produced by the company, and I can't figure out a way to re-write this article to eliminate the advertising without completely starting over. Therefore I don't think the G11 is even borderline. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 14:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought putting just "G11 candidate" would be a bit WP:BITEy, though certainly it falls under WP:TNT. If you think that the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, put a G11 tag on it.--Laun chba ller 15:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that someone more familiar with the subject than I, or someone more creative, rescue the article. I'm not !voting "speedy" because hopefully this process will help rescue what I think is a notable topic, and a speedy delete eliminates that possibility. But as it stands the article does not make Wikipedia better. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to a weak keep. Ordinary editing can slice out whole sections, so WP:TNT may not be needed. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought at first, also. However, which section *isn't* promotional? I couldn't find one. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 18:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cut out a lot of the cruft. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of Bearian's edits, and I have further removed the most blatantly promotional material. Because it is notable, I am changing to keep. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 19:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better. Considering withdrawal per WP:HEY.--Laun chba ller 21:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Withdrawn per WP:HEY.--Laun chba ller 10:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well pruned, chaps and chapesses. I accepted this WP:AFC article knowing it needed a radical pruning, and that it would not ever get one while in the approval cycle. Even so, the topic was notable if one could only get rid of the 'stuff'. Now the article is manageable, and adequate. The references allow it to be retained. It has sufficient notability and that is already referenced in WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle 23:06, 18 June 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. Mendaliv is perfectly right in saying that this qualifies for speedy deletion criterion A7. In addition, the one reference is a spuroious one, which does not exist. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo-hot[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. I see it was tagged for A7, but the article creator just removed the speedy delete template, and nobody restored it. There's no assertion of notability here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vieques#Public health. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milivi Adams[edit]

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

This article is rather poorly written, subjective in tone and speculative at several points. It cites three sources: a blog post, a blog post that's been deleted, and Pagina Digital, which may or may not be a reliable source.

A merge to Vieques#Public health may be appropriate but I find a lack of credible independent sources supporting the notability of this subject.. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You beat me to it Guy. I admit it's possible that this poor girl's death just didn't get much coverage in the Anglosphere... but her name ought to turn something significant. Lexis Advance turns zero hits for "Milivi Adams". WP:SET suggests no: Googling "Milivi Adams" gives 126 hits, and that includes Wikipedia mirrors and related projects. It's possible there's something hiding in there, but I doubt it. Even so, I paged through Google's search results for the term. There aren't even all that many non-English sources (and the English ones are universally bogus, unreliable, and/or trivial mentions). Nah. This isn't even plausible as a redirect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maybe merge. To Vieques#Public Health. Antonio El Menudo Martin (Aqui) 13:40, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
Comment: A book search throws up a few mentions ; [24], [25]. There may be more hits found if searching for Spanish sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't access either of those through any databases I have access to. The third Google Books hit is a print edition of Wikipedia. As to whether Spanish-language sources would be any different... I doubt we're going to find anything on the web or on Google Books. Unless there's a different spelling of "Milivi Adams" in Spanish, I think we're seeing everything that's been digitized. I suppose there could be something offline that's not available. If so I can't find it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a bitterly sad case, both for the child and for her family, and there cannot be a single contributor to this debate who does not wish that Milivi's life had turned out differently. However, her life and tragic death do not make her notable. The passing of any human is a loss to us all, and the fact that she was so young makes this loss all the deeper. But she is not alone in the manner of her passing, nor was she the youngest: every day many, many children die. We cannot, and should not, commemorate them all: it is not our purpose, and it would be presumptuous of us to try.

Unfortunately, there is an additional tragedy here: after her death, Milivi's sufferings were used in a political campaign. The merits of that campaign do not concern us here; if that campaign was notable, it will in time be encompassed by our work here. By this campaign Milivi and the cancer that afflicted her became nothing more than a token, a pawn in someone else's fight. She became a picture on a poster, a line in a blog, and a tool in someone else's hands. Her article here is simply that: a tool in a fight that Milivi herself knew not at all.

It is our job to document political campaigns and images in all their forms, but we present them without bias and without getting involved ourselves. When we cover them we focus on their content, but not on the personal lives of those featured, however sad. We cover The War of Jennifer's Ear, but we do not have an article about Jennifer; we have an article on the heart-rending Tomoko Uemura in Her Bath, but we do not have an article on Tomoko herself. It is our clear precedent that we do not cover the subjects of political campaigns and images simply for being the subject, however sad their story. Including an article on Milivi is against our precedent, and has the regrettable effect, by giving her inappropriate prominence, of biasing our coverage of the campaign in which she featured. Finally, I can only imagine what it must be like for Milivi's parents and surviving family. To lose a child is bad, but to find that she has been transformed into a token to be haggled over, instead of the child she was or the girl she would have become, must be a painful experience. The political campaign whose posters appeared on street-corners may or may not still be going on, but it is time to leave one girl's tragic death out of it.

Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Keep. I've added four references to independent sources, making a total of five. I believe that this qualifies under the notability (people) guidelines per "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Please see comment below. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw a number of these when I did my initial search. Most of these are mere name drops (such as the Workers World Party blog post), and at least one is clearly based on Wikipedia. The El Vocero article might just be an obit. The Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases page is nothing but a request for donations... I don't think that's anything significant. I admit the Civil Disobedience book might be something, but I can't verify it myself. I don't think that makes for notability under WP:BASIC, and further does not even address the WP:1E concerns voiced by Ca2james below. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Mendaliv. Yes, I agree the referencing is thin, which is why I went for the multiple source argument. I think the answer here is to merge some of the content into United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico#Contamination and health effects, where Milivi Adams is already mentioned in passing. The book reference and possibly a couple of the others should be used for a new paragraph summarizing the exisiting article. Philg88 ^♦talk 03:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: or possibly merge. Even though there are references available, the subject of the article is notable not for her life and death but for the way her death is being used by others. At most, this is a WP:BLP1E situation, and so a separate article on her life and death is not warranted. The material in the article would be better added to this article on the US navy in Vieques somewhere. --Ca2james (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ca2james. Sad but does not meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:31, 19 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inés Rodena[edit]

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

Unsourced POV-article. With about 27k Google hits, does she pas WP:GNG? The Banner talk 12:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure what the POV issue would be here? As per notability, see http://books.google.com/books?id=2hfMymLVNJMC&pg=PA98 "la legendaria Inés Rodena", "El éxito de la telenovela venezolana fuera y dentro se debe, básicamente, a dos autoras cubanas: a Delia Fiallo y a Inés Rodena. Las novelas de Delia Fiallo y de Inés Rodena se han repuesto como cuarenta veces con nombres", http://books.google.com/books?id=OpETAQAAIAAJ "Son las dos gigantes de la telenovela. De Inés Rodena recuerdo telenovelas", http://books.google.com/books?id=keEaAQAAIAAJ "Escritoras tan exitosas como Inés Rodena y Delia Fiallo han tenido telenovelas de enorme éxito con menos de 30 escenas por capítulo y conocemos muchas fracasadas de más de 50." --Soman (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a notable Cuban writer. -- GreenC 19:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know that ghits are a reason for keeping or deleting in any case, but if they were, which of them would 76 K support doing? Looking at WorldCat, some of her videodisks are in almost 100 US libraries, distributed widely in the US. I conclude she's sufficient notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The USA is not the world. But the main point is that the article is still unsourced. The Banner talk 20:35, 24 June 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. This seems to be a borderline issue, and the discussion yields no consensus about the notability of the topic. Sandstein 11:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This award is largely sourcable through winners writing their own press releases. I suspect it is a pay-for-play scam. We either need sources that document that it is a signficant, notable award based on our policies, or that it is a significant, notable scam, or, on the third hand, delete it. The last AfD closed no consensus, and I'm still seeing articles kept based on the putative notability of this award. Let's get this figured out. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC) (Note that I moved to neutral at near the bottom of the discussion.)[reply]

Delete I'm not the most impartial observer as the nominator of the last AFD, but my opinion hasn't changed. It might be arguable that the article meets the letter of WP:N, but certainly not in spirit. Every piece of coverage for this award is manufactured, either through a PR push or by its winners. And it's apparent that there's very little interest in maintaining this article. Mosmof (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment (as nom) I see a few sources have been added (hat tip to Arxiloxos, nice work), I tried to do some article cleanup and balance. There's still a lot pulled from primary sources. I'm sticking by delete, but I think it's more arguable. I think I'd say "keep" if I were to apply GNG naively. But here's the thing: The NY Po and WaPo articles predates the first awards, are interviews as much as articles, and end with a "go check it out at this URL", which read like press releases as a result. The WaPo is generally a very reliable publisher, to be fair. The NYT blurb was pulled in from an independent journalist, may be an interview, but again, the NYT is generally a great source--if only they'd known that the founder's name, who they allegedly talked to, was Michael, not Steven. (To be fair, they did correct it [26]) And then nothing for eleven years. How am I supposed to write an article that neutrally summarizes the weight or quality of an award when nothing reliable is written on it for the ten plus years following its creation? --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is much improved by Joe Decker's edits, which have gotten rid of most of the cruft and excessive detail. I appreciate the expressed concerns about PR abuse, and we can stipulate that winning one of these doesn't automatically convey notability on the winner. But I still think this is worth keeping. The creation of these awards was the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources, including top-quality sources like the NYT and the Washington Post. Since then, literally thousands of references to these awards have appeared in reliable sources, as shown, for example, by HighBeam Research: [27][28]. I agree with Joe Decker that the vast majority of these references are not independent; many read like straight press releases. In other cases an award is mentioned in connection with a profile of a particular winner. Then there are some like a recent contribution to Forbes.com where the columnist comments that he had "flown down to The Stevie Awards at the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas because our company was in the running for an award" and then bemoans that his company didn't win 1st place.[29] There are so many search hits that it's hard to wade through all of this to find discussions of the awards in more general terms. But I still think that it's better to provide interested readers with some verifiable information (especially now that the article's POV has been neutralized) than to leave them in the dark. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Counting the number of awards granted by this organization is extremely difficult. In the "American Business Awards" department, here are ten categories of awards, and about 10 subcategories. In each subcategory there are three levels of award (gold, silver and bronze) and at each level there are one to 5 recipients - say 2 as a conservative average. In other words, it grants 600 awards per year in this department alone. Other departments include International Business Awards, Asian Business awards. Women in business awards - six departments in all, This suggests a total of about 3,600 awards per year.

While details of the costs of participating in this "contest" are unclear, the possible ways that a "contestant" can spend money are myriad. The application fee is $230. Then there are options for sponsorship, participating as a judge, including display ads in the program, buying tickets for the award banquet... I am guessing there are a lot more, but without actually applying myself and spending money on this sham operation it is hard to tell. What is also unclear is the correlation between the amount a company spends and the quality of the award it receives, but it is hard to believe that such a correlation does not exist.

There is absolutely no information about who is behind this organization. Is it a nonprofit (apparently not)? Is it a registered business? Does it publish any guidelines about how winners are selected, about criteria or the selection process? Of course not.

All of the references provided here to establish notability are simply press releases by the award "winners" flakking their own virtues. No serious source refers to this award. Have you ever seen it mentioned in a New York Times article? In a Business Week article? in a Wall Street Journal article? No, of course not. Because every serious editor on this earth - excepting, apparently, the patsers writing for Wikipedia - knows that this is a sham.

Let's wise up and get rid of this embarrassing article. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later: Sorry, I was wrong in my estimate of the number of awards. I was looking only at the "Sales and Customer Service" supercategory. Now I realize that this is only one of a whole bunch of supercategories. In the "Management Awards" supercategory, for example, there are 21 categories. So, the total number of potential awards is much more than 3,600 that I originally estimated. And, if you really need an award and don't find a category suitable to you, I'm sure Mr. Gallagher (the founder of the Stevie awards, who is variously referred to in sources as "Michael P." or "Steven" and has disappeared entirely from Google search) will create one for you. Gold medal for Pasta extrusion machines, anyone? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later still: I don't like making unsupported allegations, and felt uncomfortable about my speculation that there is a correlation between the amount of money a company spends and the quality of the awards it receives. So I did a spot check. All of the award "sponsors" that I checked (CallidosCloud, Engility, John Hancock, Lycamobile, PetRays and SoftPro) won at least two gold Stevies in 2013. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:25, 19 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, Go Phightins! 01:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, I guess I'm neutral (as nom). I think there are some salient reasons to have an article, I think there are some to not. I think the question that probably should really bea asked is has the article gotten to a point where it's neutral and verifiable. Given that I did a fair bit of that editing, perhaps I'm the wrong person to judge, so, I'll switch my nomination/delete to neutral at this time. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot notable. If it is notable, there should be independent, third-party sources that discuss it. There aren't. I discount the three references before 2003 - that was before the true nature of the Stevie Awards business was apparent. And I discount the three references given at the end ("Applying for Stevie Awards has been recommended by multiple authors... "). First of all, the sentence is a classic example of WP:SYNTH; second, the first two references are unverifiable (at least by me), and the third is patently wrong ("It costs nothing to apply for these awards", the source says). That leaves the only references being press releases issued either by award winners or by the Stevie Awards organization itself.

Find me one - just one - source that discusses the Stevie awards in a way that sources discuss the Oscar, or Emmy, or the English Petanque competition award. Find me one profile in the New York Times, or the Sandusky Reporter, that says, "Joe Blow, winner of the prestigious Stevie Award for management, ...", and I will grant that this award is notable. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:50, 24 June 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. No compelling evidence has been provided for why WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to this individual. Several editors refer to WP:CRIME, but don't provide satisfactory evidence for how this person might pass those criteria. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 13:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Hilschenz[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS ÷seresin 00:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This truly is one event, and one could wish this woman and her family had privacy. However, the case made a big splash internationally. In addition to The Guardian and the BBC, cited in the article, there is of course Stern (cited in a list of serial killers that is the only mention of her on German Wikipedia); also Der Spiegel (English), and among other international coverage, El Mundo, The New York Times, and the Associated Press (here on Fox News). The sentence was appealed and confirmed, producing further news coverage: Deutsche Welle (in English), Associated Press (here on NBC News). And in 2009 The Daily Telegraph referred back to the case in covering another case. So the story remained in the public eye for years. With regret, I believe that makes it pass GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A first look at the article definitely gives the impression of one event and not necessary of an article. The article doesn't mention possible long term consequences mentioned above, and I honestly didn't find any beyond that one NYT article. Looking at the three criteria in WP:BLP1E, the subject does not receive coverage outside of this event, remains a low-profile individual, and the significance of the event has not been well substantiated. Scarlettail (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing seems to have been said about her other than what she did to her children. No way to write a proper biography. WP:NOTNEWS. —Kusma (t·c) 08:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see her not failing WP:CRIME. However the article needs to be expanded and sourced. Pronto.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ONEVENT. take away the crime and she gets no coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take away a film stars films and there is no coverage, take away a politicians political work and there is no coverage. No reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks you've just reinforced my delete vote. WP:NACTOR and WP:POLITICIAN have clear criteria for those professions. This person is only known for one thing. and thus fails WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but weak delete, as per WP:BLP1E, but clearly there was much coverage, internationally even, for this one event, or was it eight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:CRIME criteria as the crimes and its extent were unusual likely resulting in historic significance. --Pink Bull 18:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Scarlettail as WP:BLP1E. --Bejnar (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yngvadottir. Antrocent (♫♬) 06:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Using the WP:CRIME ruberic, the victims aren't of international renown (except in the cause of being the victims). There's no listing of a motive for the crime in the article nor is there continuing coverage about the crime, so the second prong of the CRIME test for perpetrators fails. Hasteur (talk) 12:42, 27 June 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. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 13:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of live artists and groups[edit]

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

An indiscriminate list, with no explanation of its purpose, it duplicates the existing List of performance artists. The fact someone has added a musicians category is an illustration of how confusing this list is. There are musicians and artists listed! I'm inclined to raise the Live art article for deletion discussion too, it seems to be simply another term for Performance art. Recommend deletion. Sionk (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Live art" (which I had never heard of until now) does appear to be a term in actual use by notable artists, but you may be right that it's essentially a synonym (or perhaps subtype) of performance art. In which case deletion of live art isn't necessarily the answer, but merger/redirection. As for this list, I perused the first dozen or so articles listed and only a couple even mentioned "live art", but not in any substance, they just were associated with a group that used the term in its name. There is a very long List of performance artists that would seem to serve the purpose and could use some development effort if it turns out this list is at best a poor duplicate. postdlf (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Live Art has certainly been a common term in the UK for a long time. I recall being at the National Review of Live Art in 1987. (Non-AfD trivia: a memory of Kathy Acker, Tony Benn and Neil Bartlett (playwright) standing alongside at the bar in Riverside Studios.) I think I use "live art" and "performance" interchangeably. I guess the question is whether / how to combine the performance and live art article materials. AllyD (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another WP:OR list on wikipedia of random stuff that someone has decided fits with a particular theme (of their own making), in this instance "List of live artists and groups", utterly pointless and meaningless exercise. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An IDL by any other name would smell as sweet. Anarchangel (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to live artDelete (live art no longer exists). Certainly no justification for a stand-alone list. The merge rather than delete is tentative, though, as I just PRODed the main article as insufficiently distinguished from performance art as the nom points out. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - there's nothing to merge to Live Art and the search term does not appear to be good enough to have a redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After an expired PROD, Live art now redirects to Performance art. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, as nominator. The list duplicates List of performance artists which does the job far better. Sionk (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Second !vote struck as this comment is by the nominator; the use of formatting that a different editor would use to show support can only end up being misleading or confusing to those reading the discussion. postdlf (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made it quite clear I was the nominator, so how can this be confusing. I raised a discussion without making a clear recommendation. I find it quite common for the AfD nominator to make their position clear in the discussion. Sionk (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't the comment, it was the additional !vote (i.e. the only part which was struck). As much as we don't like to admit such things, information cascades exist at varying levels of consciousness, and something is communicated by seeing lots of !votes in one direction. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So nominators are not allowed to make a recommendation?! That's news to me! postdlf recommended deletion in every way except for the heading "Comment". Do we assume that is a delete recommendation too, or do we wait until it is unambiguously stated? Sionk (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can add as many additional comments as you like so long as you don't use the formatting of a separate !vote. I don't know how we could be more clear on that point. postdlf (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The problem isn't the recommendation, it was the additional !vote. Yes, if it said "comment" instead of "delete" that would be different. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. This is all news to me and I've been active at AfD for years! Sionk (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's expressly noted at WP:AFDFORMAT ("Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line") and it comes up pretty regularly, typically because of brand new editors who think they should add a !vote to every new bulleted comment they make. On the issue of implication here, you gave arguments that the list was fundamentally flawed, and offered no indication in your nomination that you wanted or supported anything other than deletion, so yes, both as a question of general practice and specific interpretation of your nomination, it seemed clear you wanted deletion even though you did not say the word "delete". That's certainly how I read it. And the fact that you merely repeated something you already said in your nomination in explanation of your later express "delete" !vote also belies any contrary reading of the nomination... Had you been on the fence or supported merging instead of deletion you should have said so clearly, such as by identifying a merge target as an option (notwithstanding the fact that you should then probably not have started an AFD, per WP:ATD, WP:SK#1, or even WP:BEFORE).

But it seems like you're still not getting exactly what we're saying, based on your edit summary here; you're allowed to add as many comments you want, just don't use the formatting of a separate !vote (i.e., headed by a boldface "delete") which gives the appearance of a separate participant rather than a further comment from the nominator. No one would have complained had you just added a comment like "In case my nomination wasn't clear, I urge deletion," with or without a boldface "comment" at the front. postdlf (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and his/her subsequent comments. --Bejnar (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Per WP:LIST The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list. No lead to indicate what the criteria for being a member of the list is. Hasteur (talk) 12:46, 27 June 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. In the three weeks this has been open, no significant treatment of the topic in reliable sources has been adduced to rebut the "delete" arguments. Deor (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Réseau des écoles démocratiques au Québec[edit]

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

Copied and pasted from a then-unreviewed AfC draft, I am unable to find sources which meet WP:CORP / WP:CORPDEPTH that provide in-depth, arm's length coverage of this organization. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete the sources provided are not even about the subject but Quebec educational legislation. LibStar (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources about the organization... Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 22:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced I have added 3 sources that discuss the organization, links 5,6,7. User talk:Salvorisen 21:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found another source, here it is http://jual.nipissingu.ca/NewIssue/v8164.pdf . User talk:Marcinoneword 4:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC) — Marcinoneword (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I have added the academic source as per Marcinoneword, reference 8. User talk:Salvorisen 12:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Salvorisen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. That's true, I'm new, but the reference problem has been fixed.

Delete Might become notable enough, but I can't say it is at present--what the article is however is advocacy, plain and simple. The same rules apply as to advertising, regardless of our sympathies. The only [possibly neutral reference is the article in Journal of Unschooling and Alternative Learning , but it is unfortunaely an article about one particular school, with not a single word about this network. Have Marcinoneword and Salvorisen actually read it? DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asurion[edit]

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

Unable to find sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 01:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The verifiability problems (no independent sources) are a compelling reason for deletion. Sandstein 10:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Standard[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The company's own website is the only one of the external links which mentions Deutsche Standard at all, and there are no other references. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If if has an income of over $2 billion then I think it's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it has an income of USD 2 bn. This is more than Deutsche Bank, which is what most of the external links were about. I would expect a company of this alleged size to have created a bit more coverage, a (fairly superficial) search come up with nothing substantial.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. Even the company's own web site lacks any claim that it has 2B+ in annual income. No prejudice against undeletion for the purposes of userfication- or draft-ification upon-request by a established editor provided he immediately adds at least one reliable-source reference that back up some claim of notability. No prejudice against re-creating a new article or moving a userspace or other draft (including one based on this version) into mainspace provided the article goes through a review process such as WP:AFC or something similar first. If a reliable, independent source that support the 2B+ revenue are provided before the end of this discussion and I don't contribute to this discussion after that edit, change to "abstain". Better yet, ping me when it happens. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this connection, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the article previously contained a claim of having numerous offices throughout the world, which I was unable to find confirmation of anywhere, including on the company's own web site. It is very difficult to imagine that a company with such widespread offices would not have web sites for each of them, as well as a mention of them on the main company website, and equally difficult to imagine that such a global company would not be the subject of substantial coverage in many independent sources. In light of such questionable history of the article, I think it is even more important than usual to discount any claims of importance which are not supported by verifiable sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added ((citation needed)) to the annual revenue and added ((factual accuracy)) to the ((multiple issues)). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite being a plc, I think the key to his issue is that it is run by "Family office board", which suggests that it is actually a private wealth management company, not a typcial asset management business, managing funds invested by the public. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 16 June 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 Maharana Pratap. Delete and then redirect. Given problematic recreations, I'm going to consider protection of the redirect based on my own discretion. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maharani Ajabde Punwar[edit]

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

This article has now been created three times, twice by single purpose accounts with no other edits at all, and once by an account with only a few other edits. The first version of the article was deleted as lacking claim of significance (speedy deletion criterion A7), and the second version as a hoax (speedy deletion criterion G3), but since it has been repeatedly created, I thought it best to allow a discussion to settle the matter.

It has been suggested on the talk page that the article is in fact about a fictitious character in a television serial, although it is presented as fact. The current version of the article has no references at all, nor did the first version. The second version had only one reference, and that reference actually stated that the information was fictitious, and that there is no historical record of anything about Ajabade except the two facts that she was the first wife of Maharana Pratap and the mother of his first son. I have also searched on the internet for information about her, and everything I have found appears to relate to the television serial. A single sentence mention of her in the article about her husband is all that can possibly be justified. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect - The contents of the article are unreferenced. If the current contents are the limit of information then notability is not met. A redirect to the husband's article may be plausible, or a disambiguation if the other use of the name is significant as a fictional character.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Delete and redirect or delete and disambiguate seems right to me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Delete Per above. Not a pretty article to stumble upon (thanks to STiki). Widr (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 16 June 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. There is no particular SNG reflecting this role, however, consensus here would not preclude further discussion of some material elsewhere, and possibly a redirect, based on usual editorial practices. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of the Cayman Islands, London[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. has no consulate or embassy status. Article merely confirms it exists. And is simply an office in a building. "there is no flag or plaque indicating its existence, only a small label on the door-buzzer" says it all LibStar (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination. Very few embassies or diplomatic missions are notable outside the context of the relationship between the countries involved: this is less so than most, the Cayman Islands being a Crown Dependancy.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Colonial governments (now overseas territories) have a diplomatic agent to represent the governement to the UK government, which is responsble for their foreign affairs. I assume that Colonial Legislation still has to be approved by the Privy Council. Getting this done would also be the responsibility of the agent. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it may be the diplomatic agent but it has no inherent notability and fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 16 June 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 21:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KICKTV[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; original rationale that this company fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG remains valid. Creator stated that "this is Wikipedia worthy; even the New York Times has acknowledge it's notability", however the NYT piece is merely a blog about the company's YouTube channel and does not demonstrate the "significant coverage" required for notability purposes. Giant Snowman 12:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Michael (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this online channel has garnered any significant reliable coverage. Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 24 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khwajagan Naqvi[edit]

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

No references to verify. And "There was a very famous Pir called [...]"- this sounds like a NPOV. Now what should I do with this article? Jim Carter ^(talk) 10:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter ^(talk) 10:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and expand. The example given, “There was a very famous Pir called Abdullah Ansari”, may be too-informal English for an encyclopedia, but it's not really a POV problem, as that historic individual's own article describes him as the “sage of Herat” and “One of the outstanding figures in Khorasan in the 5th/11th century: commentator of the Koran, traditionist, polemicist, and spiritual master, known for his oratory and poetic talents in Arabic and Persian.” (In other words, it seems he really was very famous.) The current article is about a particular branch of his descendents, so I think the real question is, what about them is noteworthy? I've added an ((expert-subject)) towards WP:WikiProject Islam. Unician ∇ 04:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Unician ∇ 09:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could almost have been speedily deleted. The only source provided is from some chat forum, and it isn't even a citation; it's just pasted at the bottom of the article. Technically, the subject of this article may not have even been a real person. If they had been, then they don't seem to have left any lasting historical effect on the topic of religion in South Asia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That lone external link wasn't provided by the article's creator, Alireike; I added that recently as the only match found by a Web search. I don't believe the subject of this article is supposed to refer to a person, it's about a group of people, a family tree of descendents from multiple persons who are legitimately noteworthy. The article mentions ancestors Abdullah Ansari and 'Ali Naqi by name, and by extension the Naqvis would be Syeds, descendents of Muhammad. That's why I thought this article has the potential to be notable, although obviously it needs a lot more source material. The 2005 web-forum discussion ended with a claim that this family tree is well-documented; if that forum writer is the same person as the creator of this Wikipedia article, now would be the time to bring out that documentation. Unician ∇ 10:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Unician, thank you for responding though I am still not convinced of this topic's notability. If it is a family then the notability of the members, as far as I understand, doesn't pass on to make this article itself notable per WP:NRV. The web forum is irrelevant as well, because anybody can say anything. I can make up some dude named Joey Joe Joe Jr. Shabanu and claim on those world history forums (you know what I'm talking about, I forgot the exact name) that he was a famous comedian in the 1960s. That doesn't make it true or even worth investigating, though. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I fully agree, there is nothing in the article today to establish notability. I was hoping that the article creator would participate in this discussion, and that perhaps some info from those treasured family records could be contributed to the article. Without it, this stub is a statement about (possibly) the author's family, meaningful to family members, but non-notable for an encyclopedia. (For example, we don't have even the name of one member of that family after the founding generations of the branch.) The existing articles Naqvis and Syed will have to suffice, and I expect this stub to be deleted. (I had expressed the preference to keep and expand, but if we can't expand it, we can't keep it.) Unician ∇ 04:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Famous" isn't a POV issue, it's a WP:PEACOCK term that needs rewording per WP:SOFIXIT. ~~I only have tablet access today so I can't check notability.~~ Google search returns a number of results but I don't know enough about Islamic naming conventions to comment on their veracity. Definately needs expert input. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:05, 1 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 16 June 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) 00:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas (board game)[edit]

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

No sources supplied that indicate the notability of the game. There is a link to BoardGameGeek.com but they provide a listings for all games and is not sufficient by itself to establish notability. The game does to appear to have won a prestigious award for boardgames but it's not clear that this is sufficient to establish notability either. What is lacking right now is significant coverage by independent and secondary reliable sources. What makes it difficult is that with a name like "Las Vegas" it is difficult to wade through all the false positives to find this significant coverage if it exists. Nonetheless, as of now there is not enough currently in the article to establish notability. I would suggest redirecting to the creator of the game or the publisher as both have articles but glancing at those articles there are some notability issues there as well. SQGibbon (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As one of the three nominees for best boardgame of 2012 in the most prestigious board game award (Spiel des Jahres) it almost certainly has a LOT of coverage, though much of it is probably in German. A group of about a dozen journalists pick the nominees, so it's likely _they_ have covered it. That said, we need sources and the name makes it hard to search for. Hobit (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't read some of this and have problems judging the sources (due to language issues) but [30] (newspaper coverage), [31] (looks reliable), Spiel des Jahres nomiation. More potential RSes at [32]. Hobit (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the newspaper article listed above is very solid. The nomination certainly counts as a second RS. And there seem to be a number of other RSes. Hobit (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hobit. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: While it looks like the game might be notable it's difficult to tell if these are reliable sources as at least some of them appear to be gaming sites not unlike Boardgamegeek.com. Can someone choose a couple of these that they are reasonable sure are reliable and provide significant coverage? SQGibbon (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The newspaper coverage (linked above) seems to be stellar coverage. And the nomination is clearly fine (if short). I can't tell you much about the rest as I can't easily judge how reliable a source is in a language I can't read. But those two by themselves are enough for WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are the sources I found with relatively little effort. Many of them may not be terribly reliable (I can't tell since most are in German). I just verified (with the exception of those couple I couldn't access) that for each of them (a) the content is a review or otherwise not just a brief mention, press release, or ad, and (b) that this game was the primary subject of each. There are a lot:
- Sources: Ratgeberspiel (linked/quoted in the German Wikipedia article), opinionatedgamers (meh), subject of a podcast episode (meh), actually several podcasts so this is the last one I'll link (meh), fox affiliate story (hmm seems broken), Brettspiele-report, cliquenabend, gamesweplay (for some reason filtered on the public wifi I'm on), superfred, hall9000, ludoversum, malz-spiele, mikes gaming, die poeppelkiste, spielkult, spiel mit mir (another one filtered by local router!?), spiele akademie, spielenswert, spieletest, spielmonster, topolino, 2d6. Looks like an iPhone app was more recently released, too: app of the day, interview with the developer at GDC2013, pocket tactics (meh), rpggeek review. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources linked above, passes GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:48, 21 June 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 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliStar 2 Jr[edit]

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

Is a technology that delivers weather information, but I don't think it's worth its own article because little have heard of this outside of the small The Weather Channel geek base. If anything it should be merged into WeatherStar. MikeM2011 (talk) 16:45, 4 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 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with IntelliStar 2 This system and the IntelliStar 2 are pretty much one in the same in terms of general appearance, only that this system is for standard definition video, and not HD like the IntelliStar 2. The two systems may be different, but their technology is very similar to one another. --Z L Media 23:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge or redirect to IntelliStar 2. Could not find any reliable source (RS) coverage, even a mention, except for a copy of an apparently leaked, confidential installation guide from The Weather Channel. (It says in bold, uppercase letters "DO NOT COPY" in the introductory "COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL" section.) There is very limited non-RS discussion of the topic in a couple web forums, most notably one called twctoday.com (example thread). Unless a reliable source can be found, it shouldn't even be mentioned in other articles. Agyle (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 16 June 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. The primary consensus here is that no participant has a strong opinion on the matter. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Piper[edit]

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

I'm seeking a discussion on this person, even though I'm neutral. I started to try to improve this, but see there is very little on this person, besides involvement in a well known commercial and viral video. Rob (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined towards keep - the references given in the article are sufficient in establishing notability in my opinion. Also the fact that he is still being mentioned after the commercial establishes some further notability. DJAMP4444 (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete he doesn't have any significant coverage on him which fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: I'm wandering what other editors opinions are of Shoot Magazine's piece. If this is a third-party reliable source, than it helps a lot towards notability, since its substantial coverage about the subject. However, it seems somewhat promotional, and I honestly can't tell whether its a legitimate article, or if it's paid promotional material. --Rob (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: It is an article about him but I consider significant coverage multiple articles covering just him. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 16 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tesoro[edit]

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

On notability grounds. The article relies on primary sources and appears to be nothing more than a biographical advert. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should not be taken down. Though I did not create it, I have added content with proper reference and citations for my additions over the years. It has also been edited by other members of wikipedia over the years. On another note, I see that you have put up for deletion several articles that I have either created or significantly added to over the years. One or two times is a coincidence but four articles in a row is a pattern, and it makes me wonder if you are targeting articles I have been a part of for some reason? Tom Bloom (which I did not create), Anthony Tesoro, and Tesoro Ministry Foundation, were deleted after you recommended they be deleted. Why not recommend that they be edited for better neutrality or more references, why go straight for the delete. Now Ashley Cafagna (which I did not create either) who is a famous actress, which I have added information to from notable sources (newspapers, magazines, interviews, etc.) and you think it is an advertisement. Maybe all of your aikido articles and others Martial arts articles are advertisements too??? maybe they should be recommended for deletion too??? Please stop targeting my articles and see that they are restored so that I can help update them to wikipedia standards through helping make them more neutral and add additional citations. Don't just take them down. Thank you ILoveCountryMusic (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not coming up with in-depth coverage, but being a regular cast member on multiple notable shows, and having multiple Young Artist Award nominations, appears to be enough to satisfy WP:ENT. Gongshow talk 04:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could at least some references be incorporated into the article. This article was a keystone article to a series of wall garden articles all of which basically referred to themselves. To answer ILove above you weren't targeted - just one article led to another. With this one I was nudged into AfD by another editors comments. The article relies on primary sources (I don't see the newspapers, magazines mentioned) which is the main reason I submitted it to Afd although I additionally question the notability (famous?) of the subject.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to Peter Rehse; concerning the notability of this person, there are many people who would question the notability of Morihei Ueshiba because they have never heard of him or Aikido. Does that make him or his art any less notable? Soap Opera fans who number in the millions around the world think that Ashley (Cafagna) Tesoro and other actors and actresses like her are notable and worth mentioning in an article in Wikipedia. Concerning the secondary sources, you are correct that they do not appear on the article and I am not sure why unless they were deleted at some point. I will re-add them before weeks end, and hope that this will satisfy you and the other editors within the Wikipedia community. Thank You ILoveCountryMusic (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took down the AFD yesterday but it is back up so I am obviously not "an experienced enough Wikipedian." I guess 7 years is not long enough to be experienced. The AFD summary includes as follows; "When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." The discussion has been open for almost two weeks, The consensus is keep, someone should take this AFD down. PS I already added new secondary neutral sources of national and international article sources. ILoveCountryMusic (talk) 08:57, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in this article from the Ventura County Star and this article from soaps.sheknows.com. (http://soaps.sheknows.com/about/ indicates there is editorial oversight of soaps.sheknows.com's articles.) She also received coverage in this article from the Ventura County Star, though her husband is the article's primary subject. The coverage allows the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:20, 26 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Model Management[edit]

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

Advertising The Banner talk 23:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not written in a Neutral Point of View. It contains promotional language and doesn't seem suitable for an encyclopedia. Vaca tion 9 13:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prune -- If it is really one of the "top modeling agencies", it probably ougfht to have an article. Its founder has an article. However this reads far too much like an ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Stub to one sentence based on a combination of insidious promotional text, and copyright issues arising from the close paraphrasing vs. [33]. Neutral as to notability, but the content is unsalvageable. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to meet the WP:NPOV policy. The article is in problematic state for over three years and nothing has been done to rectify the problems since it was nominated for deletion 22 days ago. --Pink Bull 18:24, 26 June 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. Sources have emerged, and a claim to notability, so we should see how this can be improved. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Beigi[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this individuals passes WP:MUSIC or it's just an issue of systemic bias. He has three nominations for the World Music Awards which I'm not sure certain qualify as a major music award under 8. He was also allegedly featured on a BBC Persian TV program which could qualify under 12. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it's not a proper measure of notability for these purposes, but Sami Beigi has almost a million ghits in English and سامی بیگی has more than a million in Persian. More on point, I am seeing a whole lot of so-so/marginal sources, but none that are really great. Still, especially with the awards he's won, I feel confident sufficient sources exist between the two languages. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources may be found at Iranian newspaper search engine -- GreenC 17:15, 19 June 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell Dickens[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable person. I turned down a CSD because there is a news source that covers him in passing, and a comment on the talk page contesting the CSD says there is more. Since I like to give people a chance, they should be given the opportunity to come up with them, though I'll still point out anything violating WP:BLP should be aggressively removed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (arguably speedy delete). I can understand why someone unfamiliar with Australian rules football didn't speedy delete, but to be honest I would have. The 'source' about him being a draft prospect in 2014 is blatantly made up (and even if it were somehow true, it would not make him notable). Only actual mention in a source is a local story about some school fundraising. Vanity page by an underage kid who probably doesn't realise how stupid it is to put so much information about himself online. The photo should probably be deleted too. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Personal information of non-notable minors should never be allowed to stay online. We don't know if it's a vanity page by him, or a mate or an enemy trying to embarrass him by posting this. BLP for minors should be so much stronger than for adults. The-Pope (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean speedy delete via G10 ("Attack page"?) To be honest, I think rewording G10 to cover this scenario has some merit. I see you've trimmed out the BLP violations (which I meant to do but forgot) and I've taken out the picture. It's for his own good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete we should err on the side of speed with minors. Principals of schools are not notable, head prefects even less so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since the article's creator has not commented on this AfD, then I agree that speedying this is the way to go. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 22 June 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Real MacKay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability is not inherited. Last discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Real_MacKay for a merge (reversed at DR because of nominator withdrawal) and still doesn't show evidence of notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SO why is there NO mention of the blogs on the STV news page? its like it been whitewashed from history, Ive notice FAR too many points and things are being whitewashed or taken out as there now classed as history...--Crazyseiko (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source about the blogs? I haven't been able to find one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we know 1+1 = 2 but if its not written down its not real? Thats still not a good enough reason for whitewashing history. --Crazyseiko (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Asking for a source about a blog from a newstation is not "whitewashing history." Is there one broadcast that actually has long-term relevance? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk STV rebrand in 2009, 2014, talk about STV Glasgow, STV news rebrand. Start of Scotland Tonight. There talk to people about certain news stories and the BIG events like Pipa alpha etc There spoken to reporters who have wiki page about there life and jobs, New STV studio. Its Pretty clear you never watched them or have any knowledge about this subject. --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't which is why I'm asking for independent sources about it. WP:TRUTH. That they have reported on things is fine (the truth isn't the issue here, I know the blogs exist) but is there any information on a particular report of theirs that actually was newsworthy (the report not their subject)? I don't consider the fact that the newspaper had a vblog about it asking its reporters about their wiki pages particularly compelling (or really anything but advertising). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might go ahead with this, BUT only if the information ( at least a name check on the STV news page. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:55, 24 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joyful Jukebox Music[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 10:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An album of original material by a notable band (The Jackson 5), which has been professionally reviewed: see the Allmusic review that I added. Enough to meet WP:NALBUM I think. AllyD (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD's findings. This release appears to have sufficient coverage for a standalone article. Gongshow talk 17:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sarazino. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Salama[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sarazino, the artist's page. All I could find on the album is this article, which has some useful info that can be incorporated. I'm not finding other sources to get this to meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, however. Gongshow talk 17:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robert Silverberg. Sandstein 17:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conquerors from the Darkness[edit]

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

Long-unreferenced article doesn't appear to me at WP:NBOOK despite well-known author. Mikeblas (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Silverberg, but with history. Part of the issue here is the time period, as there may be more sources off the internet. However I can't really find anything to show that this book merits a separate article at this point in time. I would say that this should re-direct with history in case more sources are found, although part of me thinks that it's somewhat unlikely, so that when we do have enough coverage to show that the book passes WP:NBOOK, we'll have something to pull from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The case for WP:NBOOK #5 is present, uncontested, and persuasive.

The text of NBOOK #5 gives decent and guidance on its narrow application. NBOOK 5 states in part: "This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study". Two editors signed onto this, none rebutted it, although none offered evidence to support the claim, so on that question, I'm left with nothing except closer discretion and judgment. A quick look at Gbooks and Gscholar on the author, however, as well as the legacy and influence section of Dick's biography, confirm a number of books and scholarly journal articles on the works of the author from varying perspectives. Failing a broader community discussion to the contrary, I am persuaded that Dick meets the standard of exceptional significance, and as a result, this short story meets the high hurdle of NBOOK 5. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Great C[edit]

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

Non-notable short story that fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, despite being by a well-known author. Mikeblas (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm still digging, but I've found enough to suggest that the short story is notable, especially since it was part of the inspiration for a larger work by PKD, Deus Irae. I am running into the issue that most of the coverage is in books as opposed to other sources, but it's received mention in various books about PKD over a fairly good span of time. I could also probably argue that PKD is one of those rare, rare authors that is of exceptional significance to the point where this could pass under criteria 5 of WP:NBOOK because of PKD's significance in the sci-fi genre. He's pretty much at that level for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had an argument all prepared, but Tokyogirl79 already laid it out in the second half of her comment, so I'm just going to say keep per Tokyogirl79. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dweomer (Deverry Cycle)[edit]

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

Single-source article about structure of magic in a series of novels. Completely in-universe style, non-notable on its own. Marked for cleanup for more than six years. Mikeblas (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after transwiking to this page. Like the article for Deverry, this element just hasn't received coverage independent of the book series to where it'd merit an article. However I do note that the Wikia page for the topic is much shorter and not as in-depth, so there would be merit in sending the information over to that page where it will be more useful. (As tone and lack of sourcing is not really an issue for fan wikis.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 16 June 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 21:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deverry[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about kingdom in a series of novels. Completely in-universe style, non-notable on its own. Mikeblas (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's just nothing out there to show that the kingdom has received coverage independent of the series. The style/tone is more fit for a fan wiki and given that there's already a fine entry at this page, there's nothing to transwiki either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title would serve as a good redirect to the main article, but I don't think that this fictional country will ever really reach the level of notability needed for an article and there's already a really, really well-written Wikia entry on this (likely where the WP article got copied from), so no need for the history. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 16 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delena Kidd[edit]

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

Ignoring the unreliable IMDb, this is an unsourced BLP. Laun chba ller 16:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search didn't turn up any RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Refs now added, several other articles link to it including one citing a lead role in a TV drama, red links that prompted its creation would return if deleted. Sealman (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The refs hint at notability, but only just in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the four sources appear to me to be both reliable (under our standards) and signficant. There might be arguably such a source in my research, it's hard to tell whether [34] meets the bar of signficant coverage, but if it is, it would still only reach half of GNG. Additional sources welcome, as always. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Moved to Keep, Cunard's sources meet WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in this article^WebCite from The Oxford Times. See also this article^WebCite from Independent Online (South Africa), where the author reviewed a play Delena Kidd performed in. Here is the coverage in the Independent Online article about Delena Kidd:
I last saw Delena Kidd and Gary Raymond in the brilliantly witty and clever Dear Liar at the Theatre on the Bay three years ago.
They made a formidable and very watchable couple back then. And they still do. British actor Gary Raymond, who is known for his Hollywood roles in Look Back in Anger, El Cid and Jason and the Argonauts, completed his training at the Royal Shakespeare Company and the actor, now in his mid-seventies, still cuts a dashing figure.
His real-life wife of about 50 years, Delena Kidd, is excellent at portraying Jean, the bitter fallen star. She teems with anger and regret and takes it all out on the poor Reginald, who seems to be hovering around the edge of senility, but clearly still adores her. Kidd has a cult following for her roles in The Avengers and Danger Man.
There is also some less significant coverage in this article^WebCite from Croydon Guardian ("His wife and co-star Delena Kidd has appeared in and produced many Shakespeare productions around the world and is also known for her feature role in the TV series Family Affairs.") and this article^WebCite from Hampshire County Publications (Experienced stage and screen actress Delena Kidd plays Harriett, a stylish and attractive woman who suddenly decides to introduce her ex-lover to her husband ... His wife and co-star, Delena Kidd, has a cult following for roles in The Avengers and Danger Man, among many other performances.).
I think there is sufficient coverage about Delena Kidd and reviews of her performances that she passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suhail Al Zarooni[edit]

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

This article fail to meet the relevant notability guideline according to WP:CS policy, citations are self driven not from reliable sources as per WP:POV policy and it seems advertisement of an individual so it therefore its Verifiability is highly questioned as per WP:V policy, should be deleted from Wikipedia.-- Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 12:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not a terrible article and it seems he has certainly done some work but there's not much notability and substance to neaten the article. I haven't found any other significant news links aside from the ones listed. A lot of people make the Guinness World Record and it seems Suhail has twice but not all of them get in-depth and significant attention. There's a lot of information in this article that isn't covered by sources. I'm open to a future article when the time comes. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Fun[edit]

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

As far as I have been able to find, the only references are primary. I see no evidence this is a notable work. LadyofShalott 00:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Fun. ZP5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 16 June 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 - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Collinson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

last AfD was no consensus. dont think he meets WP:MUSICBIO. all i could find is 1 line mentions of him. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 06:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 18:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because he meets #6 of WP:MUSICBIO and his academic achievements at MU and Banff should qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

does "guest" count as a role? as opposed to a permanent role? LibStar (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A "principal guest conductor" is someone wwho conducts an orchestra quite regularly, typically about 4 times a year. I expect "guest principal horn" means something similar. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fender Jazz Bass players[edit]

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

List with no discernible criteria. Almost completely unreferenced, and a chore to "weed" for new non-notable and unreferenced additions. Because professional musicians may choose to play any number of brands and models of instruments through their career, it is difficult to establish a meaningful criteria inclusion in such a list. Mikeblas (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. List of Stratocaster players may provide a good model for how to do a list of this sort, targeted to use of a particular model of instrument. No idea if Fender Jazz Bass has the potential for anything similar. It at least seems more feasible to me than this... postdlf (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so open-ended as to be almost indiscriminate. There are a significant number of sub-models and while these are high-quality and expensive, they are not that rare. Realistically, "list of bass players" wouldn't be that different to "List of Fender Jazz Bass players"; given the reputation these instruments have, a large number of bass players would have picked one up over the course of their careers, even just to try it out. I imagine the point of this list would be those who play them regularly, at public gigs or are known specifically for playing them. But by what standard? If someone plays one once at a notable gig, do they make the list? It's like a List of actors who drink beer or a List of sportspeople sponsored by Nike. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List_of_Fender_Jazz_Bass_players has been viewed 1673 times in the last 30 days.--86.205.27.17 (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And? St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(What he means is, please read WP:POPULARPAGE: popularity of a page is not a criterion for retaining that page. Also, please grow a user name as votes on either side of a deletion discussion made by an IP address are usually summarily discounted. Thanks!) KDS4444^Talk 10:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many Followers --151.16.37.179 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point - there are a great many people who could be added to this list, including (most likely) the two IP editors who showed up to lodge non-policy !votes in favour of their favourite bass guitar. This is a pointlessly indiscriminate list that doesn't meet WP policy. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Non-notable topic fails notability for stand-alone lists. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title of the article is vague to the point of being unreferenceable except by tangential cites that have no real bearing on the subject at hand. Stalwart111 makes the fundamental point when he mentions the List of actors who drink beer: you can provide citations that there are actors who do, in fact, drink beer-- but that does not the basis of a Wikipedia article make. (Except if you are composing an article on exploding animals: that thing has survived eight deletion nominations so far.) Just because you can make a list of certain things does not mean that the list is meaningful or substantive. Also: with only two !keep votes, both by IP users, how is this deletion discussion still even happening? KDS4444^Talk 10:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ironheart Crown[edit]

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

A non notable article without any sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability or significant coverage. 109.201.154.178 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Vale Tudo Championship[edit]

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

A non notable article without any sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article--fails GNG. 109.201.154.178 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no sources and nothing to indicate notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Fighters Latino[edit]

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

A non notable article without any sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to meet GNG. 109.201.154.178 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources except for a link to the organization's home page and no indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:35, 22 June 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 Tubelord. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Songs for Rock Kids[edit]

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

Album that fails WP:NMUSIC, especially since the band that it pertains to already has been identified as a band that may not meet WP:NMUSIC. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. is a notable release that includes much of the bands rare material, band is well known in the UK alternative scene and have been mentioned in publications such as Rock Sound, Spin Magazine and the BBC. Golf_is_super_cool (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tubelord. Lack of reliable sources. Of the two references on the article, one (Mystic Sons) is a PR company. Google shows very little else. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Plausible search term, but I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 07:16, 22 June 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. Uncontested deletion. Sandstein 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

e-Parliament[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable organisation, article lacks WP:RS

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero RS's provided, and I found nothing useful elsewhere to demonstrate notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to BYU Economics Department. There is a clear consensus that a separate article isn't warranted, but no consensus to remove the history of the page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BYU Macroeconomics and Computational Lab[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. Article discusses non-noteworthy events that are common to educational facilities world-wide (e.g. hosting conferences, publishing papers, supporting students), and thus promotes the subject rather than summarizing independent coverage of it. Better off as a redirect to BYU Economics Department with content reduced to a short blurb in said article, if anything. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete most of the excessive content Shii (tock) 22:26, 5 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, czar ♔ 00:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to BYU Economics Department. That seems sensible. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 18 June 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 Tamilnadu Government Multi Super Speciality Hospital. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green Legislative Assembly[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources that would attest that "Green Legislative Assembly" is anything more than a brief marketing hype for a new public building that takes advantage of sunlight. Would have nominated it for merger into Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly but it has too much WP:NPOV to be useful. ELEKHH^T 08:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 10:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 10:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could have sworn that buildings are almost an auto-Keep at Wikipedia. Take for example Plas Newydd, an article I worked on recently. If not for the three sources I added about a heat pump being installed in it, the entire article would still be sourced by the National Trust, which owns the property. Not exactly an independent source. But no one cares. Buildings are here to stay, they gather publicity over the years like moss, and their existence is empirically observable like nothing else but rivers highways and mountains. So what is your beef with this building, exactly? As for merger, let me refer you to the articles Ohio Legislature and Ohio Statehouse. It is not merely acceptable to have both legislature and building articles, but customary. Anarchangel (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. As you'll see from that article, and the various articles to which it links, the location of the Legislative Assembly for that state is in a degree of flux, and this is reflected in our own coverage, which needs a substantial re-write (starting with Tamil Nadu legislative assembly-secretariat complex). Ultimately this re-write should probably lead to the creation of an article titled "Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Building", but it would probably be wise to wait until they've finished building it, and have definitely decided that this is where the Assembly plans to settle. Given that they haven't even managed to complete the building's dome properly yet, an article right now would be premature. The green credentials of the building are mildly interesting, but since virtually every new building these days makes similar claims they're certainly not notable per se. The building certainly doesn't have "Green" in its name, so the article title here is misleading. So let's put the useful information in the "Location" section of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for now. RomanSpa (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Politics alert: We have a more current article on this building and it is Tamilnadu Government Multi Super Speciality Hospital. Wait, what? Well, when the government changed hands, the new people in power didn't like the idea of this being the assembly, so it's been converted to a hospital now. A redirect should be good, as it's a very likely search term, but all the necessary content about the conversion from assembly to hospital is in the hospital article. That article started as an article for the assembly building and morphed into its current state over time. —SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CodeBeamer[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 16 June 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, with no prejudice against moving the article to Habib Noh or further editorial development.Mojo Hand (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makam Habib Noh[edit]

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

No sources to support the notability of this mausoleum. 1292simon (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Singapore Infopedia has entries about the mausoleum and Habib Noh himself. NewspaperSG has 78 results for "Makam Habib Noh" and 23 results for "Keramat Habib Noh" (most are in Malay). A Google Books search finds 16 results for "Keramat Habib Noh". Note that the mausoleum is part of the Haji Muhammad Salleh Mosque, so perhaps there should be an article about the mosque that also covers the mausoleum. --Hildanknight (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the mosque and the makam warrant separate articles. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a number of reliably sourced references out there. I will work on this article over the next couple of days to bring it up to scratch. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have rewritten the article with references. Once this AfD is over it may be sensible to create a new article on Habib Noh with the makam as a subsection rather than the other way around as it is now - there are more reliable sources out there and those in Malay have been ignored so far. This article can then be redirected to the new one. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks to Philg88's efforts, there are now some good references for Habib Noh (the person). I still believe notability for the mausoleum has not been established. Therefore, as per Philg88's suggestion, I believe that this article should be renamed Habib Noh and the mausoleum become a subsection of it. 1292simon (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "at Makam Habib Noh, the most popular and venerated keramat in Singapore." comes up at Google Books, http://books.google.com/books?id=fvZuAAAAMAAJ p. 30 and "In Singapore there are several ke- ramats where the Baweanese pay homage; the most popular are the Makam Habib Noh at Tanjong Pagar..." http://books.google.com/books?id=ZvgcAQAAMAAJ p. 53 --Soman (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 21:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immix[edit]

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

advert, no reliable references Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banned from the Bible[edit]

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

Adding article on the sequel:

This article is on a non-notable History Channel documentary. The documentary itself contains numerous errors and misleading data, but this information cannot be included in the article because no reliable secondary sources have discussed the documentary in detail. The article originally functioned as a WP:POVFORK by reproducing the errors of the documentary itself, but since that was trimmed the article has been almost completely bare.

Comment - I completed the nomination for User:126.0.96.220 (User:Hijiri88), combining the two (nearly) identical rationales into a single AfD. Ansh666 06:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D Also I should have pointed out that the documentaries are also both very obviously (given their broadcast dates and their sharing Dan Brown's flawed view of books almost no one ever took seriously as scripture being "banned" from "the Bible") designed to capitalize on The Da Vinci Code (for the first one) and The Da Vinci Code (film) (for the sequel). This is another point that a neutral, encyclopedic discussion of these documentaries would have to include, but we are unable to mention it because there aren't enough reliable third-party sources. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 182.249.240.33 (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable documentary series. If people want to leave a redirect for Biblical apocrypha, I'm okay with that. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. Non-notable miniseries, not mentioned in the article Biblical apocrypha or any related page on that subject. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This appears to be about apocryphal and even less reliable works that were excluded from the Bible. This will all be covered in Biblical apocrypha and related articles. The fact that they featured in a certain TV series would surely fail . Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Westwood Studios . (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.VQA[edit]

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

WP:Notability not established by multiple reliable independent sources. — Keφr 09:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am not sure what notability guideline applies to file extensions, but I generally favor retaining these factual pages; their absence does more harm (by omission) than their presence. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a link in the nomination. — Keφr 04:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gee, thanks. But practically every topic on Wikipedia has more specific notability guidelines than GNG and I can't seem to find under which one "file extensions" would be. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come on, don't be so lazy, it's pretty obvious he's asking you to expand your stance a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Westwood Studios since it is their in-house file format. No evidence of notability (it's covered in various directories of file formats but nothing substantial to show why it's noteworthy). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:09, 16 June 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 King Soloman Reigns. Wily D 13:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Ayala (featherweight boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - he is brother to two notable boxers but does not meet WP:NBOX and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Peter Rehse (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:Peter Rehse (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Paulie Ayala (featherweight boxer). Notable boxer with numerous reliable sources, easily meets the general notability guideline. Added references, revamped, article in better shape now.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work and thanks for updating rather than just pointing out. BoxRec does not mention the WBA fights - and I based the initial nomination on that. BoxRec is usually pretty good for that so I wonder what happened. The source you gave for that is just as good (better)?).Peter Rehse (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is good to challenge articles because often what sometimes happens is the articles get improved. This one sat there for so long, unimproved, that my reaction was the same as yours, like, what is going on here. So it is good that you challenged it. I've come to notice that using the "news" function when searching on Google often has the effect of missing lots of sources, particularly in sports, so in the browser, I put the subject in quotes like "Paulie Ayala" and simply searched the web, without clicking on the "news" function, and some of the better sources emerged only after five to ten SERP pages, to my surprise. So I tidied the article a bit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Sam should be deleted and would want this AfD to run its course.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but there should really be two separate deletion discussion pages for Paulie and Sammy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sammy Ayala. Found more sources and revamped so perhaps this should be reconsidered. Sufficient sources meets the WP:GNG including NY Times, NY Post, San Antonio newspaper sources, ESPN, Box Rec, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sammy, Keep Paulie As a WBA champion Paulie clearly meets WP:NBOX. Sammy does not meet WP:NBOX and I believe he lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. He is mentioned in articles, but only in passing. Papaursa (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sammy Fails NBOX and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paulie Meets WP:NBOX. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Looks like someone has multiple personality disorder. So many IP addresses, so little weight in a deletion discussion. KDS4444^Talk 10:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

???Peter Rehse (talk) 10:31, 26 June 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 Mats Traat. Sandstein 11:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inger (novel)[edit]

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

The two-line stub doesn't give any indication as to its significance, nor can I find anything in English. Perhaps it's the great Estonian novel, but without sources, who can tell? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or just redirect to Mats Traat. The novel has been published in six additional languages, but it isn't the best-known work of the author, and the notability for en.wiki is dubious. --Sander Säde 08:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mats Traat until and unless more content about the book is identified. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tahtib. ...editorially appropriate information to Tahtib. Topic was found to not meet our notability guidelines. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Tahtib[edit]

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

This is a non-notable martial art. Most of the article is an expansion of Tahtib with very little on the modern version which seems to be localized to one teacher in Paris with not a very long history. Best practice wold be to migrate the extra information to Tahtib which currently is only a Stub and delete this article. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect No apparent difference between "modern" and regular tahtib. Lacks significant independent coverage. 109.201.154.178 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main difference between Tahtib and Modern Tahtib is that Tahtib is a folkloric dance whereas Modern Tahtib is a Martial Art. Modern Tahtib has been recognized and considered as being enough relevant and notable to be part of the 2010 International Martial Art Festival In Paris.

Delete/Merge/Redirect Links to videos is not sufficient to show notability. Lacks the coverage necessary to show it meets WP:GNG. Nothing shows it merits a separate article, but I could live with a merge/redirect. Papaursa (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tahtib Nothing to show this is notable so merge the two articles.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Cochran[edit]

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

notability Appears to be an issue with this article. Amortias (T)(C) 12:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:MUSIC. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 14:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any compelling evidence that this guy meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSIC, or the WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 15:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College Permission System[edit]

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

Unsourced article. A quick reference search found no sources. Possibly a hoax. I worked on College admissions in the United States and follow the topic extensively, and this "article" here in Wikipedia is the first I've learned about a prior permissions letter, required before applying to any colleges, including elite ones. Pre-approval letters seem counter-intuitive to me; my sense is that almost all colleges wish to have the highest number of applications possible (to further their prestige, ranking in USNews etc), and a requirement that a permission to apply letter was needed, would clearly lower the number of applications. Without reliable sources, this article should be deleted, possibly speedily so. Further, the College Permission System article suggests that Yale University adopted the system in 2002; a search of Yale's admissions website reveals no mention of such a requirement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a speedy delete reason, as I don't see a blatent hoax, even though unsourced and almost certainly untrue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newsnextbd[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a newspaper/media group. I am unable to find any sources that cover the subject in any depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 14:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 16 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lavinia Meijer[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. I see a short bio at http://www.allmusic.com/artist/lavinia-meijer-mn0002259715 and some coverage at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b043q219 but nothing that goes into detail there. I also see brief reviews from sources that are usually trying to sell her music. I won't fight to have this subject deleted, but if it stays, the information in the article needs to be improved with RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I came across this article while working on List of compositions by Philip Glass where I added a transcription of Glass' compositions done by Ms Meijer. I am very surprised that it is considered for deletion since she is very well known in the musical world (she did Carnegie Hall in 2007^[1]) and the recipient of multiple awards. I added some developments and references to the article in order to make this very clear, but lack of references is not a sufficient reason for deletion.

Also, and contrary to what is written above, she absolutely meets WP:BIOMUSIC because a musician or ensemble is notable if it meets at least one of the criteria mentioned in the notability guidelines and she meets six of them :

• Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart and Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country : in 2013, Lavinia Meijer's "Metamorphosis / The Hours" (Philip Glass) CD was awarded Gold Record status for classical music in the Netherlands by The Dutch Association of Producers and Importers of image- and sound carriers^[2] (the album also rose to the top of the Dutch rock charts^[3] · ^[4]) and in 2014, Lavinia brought out "Passaggio", which consists of pieces by the Italian composer/pianist Ludovico Einaudi^[5], an album which immediately became number one on the Itunes Classical Charts.^[4]

• Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable) : Lavinia has issued four Super-Audio CDs for a very respected indie label (Channel Classics Records) and one for a major record label (Sony Classical Records) : see article

• Has won or placed in a major music competition : Lavinia Meijer has won a large number of prizes. She won the first prize at the Prinses Christina Competition (1997), the Stichting Jong Muziek Talent Nederland (1996,1998), the Nederlands Harp Competition (1997, 2004) and the Vriendenkrans contest from the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam (2005).

She also won prizes at several large international harp competitions: the second prize at the International Harp Competition in Lausanne (1998), the third prize at the International Harp Competition in Lille (1999), the first prize at the International Harp Competition in Brussels (2000), the third prize at the International Harp Competition in Israel (2001), the second prize at the Reinl-Wettbewerb in Vienna (2002) and the third prize at the Sixth International USA Harp Competition in America (2004).

Furthermore, she has won prizes for the best interpretation of Visions in Twilight from Garrett Byrnes and the harp concert in B-flat major from Georg Friedrich Händel. In 2005, Lavinia was awarded the Cultuurprijs from Ede for her promotion of the harp as a solo instrument. This prize was presented to her by the renowned Herman Krebbers.

In 2007, Lavinia was awarded the Fellowship from the Borletti-Buitoni Trust in London, as well as the MeesPierson Award at the Concertgebouw (Amsterdam) together with violinist Tjeerd Top.

In 2009, Lavinia was awarded the Dutch Music Prize, the highest distinction for a classical musician in the Netherlands.

In 2012, Lavinia received the Edison Award Public's Prize, for her CD "Fantasies and Impromptus".

• Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album : Lavinia recorded Ludovico Einaudi's Mattina which became the soundtrack of the incredibly successful French movie The Intouchables (Untouchable in the UK).^[1]

• Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network : as a featured soloist, she appeared on several radio programs and TV shows with renowned orchestras, notably BBC Radio^[6].

REFERENCES

^ ^a ^b Arts and Entertainment, TheHagueOnline.com
^ (in Dutch) Harpist Lavinia Meijer ontvangt gouden plaat, Muziekweb.nl
^ Lavinia Meijer, Hayfestival.com
^ ^a ^b Lavinia Meijer, Serious.org
^ Passaggio, Allmusic.com
^ Lavinia Meijer, Nico Muhly, James Boyd, BBC Radio

Anandali (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above and other lengthy treatment at allmusic [35][36] & so on. Annoying ((sofixit))-suitable nom. 78.19.75.47 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I live in Holland and she is a real star here. It's so obvious she shouldn't be deleted. Look how many times she appeared on TV : Lavinia Meijer

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 21:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recession (Short Film)[edit]

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

No inline citations, COI, seems like advertisement, no significance — ASCII-002 I ^Notify_Online 15:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Recession (film) Varadraj Swami Ranjit Biswas Arvind Swami Yash Bharat Jain Priya Jaiswar Dev Khubnani Sanyogita

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect to Varadraj Swami - The short film is located in the director's article with enough information to not need its own article... --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've just noticed that Varadraj Swami has been deleted. Therefore, there's no reason to redirect. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:55, 21 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green Valley (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article looks like too close paraphrasing or even copyvio from [37] that in a Google Translation looks very similar to the present text. The Banner talk 16:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wrt the GNG. [38] shows significant coverage from El Correo, Gara, Diário de Notícias et al. 78.19.75.47 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 16 June 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 R5 members#Ellington Ratliff. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 06:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellington Lee Ratliff[edit]

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

Part of a notable band, (R5 (band)), yet no indication of individual notability, therefore I'm going to say that he fails WP:MUSICBIO. G S Palmer (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Clearly notable as part of a notable band. More information on individual notability will come to light as the article matures.68.144.172.8 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (no merge) to R5 (band). Being part of a notable band isn't enough to meet the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO (being a member of multiple notable bands would meet #6, but he isn't). WP:MUSICBIO goes on to say specifically "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." The filmography consists only of cameos and small parts on TV, which doesn't meet WP:ENT, so that doesn't count; that's also the only information in this article that isn't in the R5 article, so no need for a merge. — Gwalla | Talk 04:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 16 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1775 (TV pilot)[edit]

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

Non-notable television pilot that wasn't picked up as a series, joining the thousands of other failed television pilots failing WP:N and WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all failed television pilots have Wikipedia pages and there is a respectful category for Television pilots not picked up as a series --Riadse96 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said a failed pilot cannot have a Wikipedia article. This particular failed pilot is not notable. I'm confused as to how presenting that category justifies/clarifies a 'keep' vote for this particular article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG with coverage in multiple sources, including a substantive Variety review; no compelling reason to delete it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Listed sources are mostly a bit on the brief side but enough info for an article. But it's probable that a new sitcom with such a well-known star would have additional print reviews that aren't online. At the very least, info should be merged to Ryan O'Neal (which is very short on his acting career).--Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Marschak Lecture[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walras–Bowley Lecture[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 16 June 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) 00:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frisch Medal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "The Frisch medal is not only one of the top three prizes in the field of economics, but also the most prestigious 'best article' award in the profession, says Rich Jensen, Gilbert F. Schaefer Professor of Economics at Notre Dame and chair of the Department of Economics."[39] "MIT economist Robert M. Townsend has been awarded the prestigious Frisch Medal".[40] "Many [Boston University] faculty have won prestigious awards such as ... the Frisch Medal".[41] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Clarityfiend shows the award is notable. Th only other option would be to merge it into Frisch, meaning that article would have a long list. This is mainly a list article. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just come up with some non-related reliable sources. The Banner talk 18:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did: three top universities consider it noteworthy. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was asking for independent reliable sources. Not articles from universities that are happy that their professor got the medal. The Banner talk 00:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, they are independent; they have nothing to do with awarding the medal. Second, if it weren't a significant honor, they wouldn't be happy crowing about it, would they? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - most refs regarding the award are related to someone winning it. As is the case with most awards. This study mentions the award study (pdf) Jonpatterns (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable enough, in addition to sources mentioned by Clarityfiend I would also bring up over 400 results at google book search.--Staberinde (talk) 16:07, 17 June 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. without prejudice to recreation by someone willing to actually do content development on the article j⚛e decker ^talk 21:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Stakes top three finishers[edit]

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

4 years without content is enough. we should either add content or delete at this point. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably but give it time to be fixed. Reluctant as I usually am to support a deletion, I have to agree that no content is a problem here, and as it's a Grade III race, it doesn't have the notability that a Grade I would. I say if no one says they will step up and fill out the chart, then, sadly, it probably should go. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my intention was, of course, to draw attention to this article, but technically its without content, so i can AFD it and not be accused of misusing the process. if other editors that work on horse racing want to hold onto it a bit more, thats fine with me. I think we only would need to have 3 listings, for 3 years, to justify it staying. i have no idea how to research this myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The significance of the race itself is that it's a Kentucky Derby prep, but these top three finishers lists in general have sometimes created a dramafest at WikiProject horse racing, so my thinking is that, as a courtesy who someone who might care (did anyone ping the lead editor?) we should give it the usual week or whatever the standard time is. I won't fight to keep it, and if no one pops by to support it, I'm OK with deleting an empty list, but I don't think the wiki will suffer to wait a wee bit. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 16 June 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 14:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert S. Johnston IV[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only sources are hobbyist publications; nothing he's done is materially notable. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the last person to talk with a person who goes on to become notable does not confer notability. I see no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or, more importantly, WP:BLP. KDS4444^Talk 10:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of expression app[edit]

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

Questionable notability Jayakumar RG (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam-like, and cited onlt to self-published sources. Deficit of reliable sources that would suggest sub-optimal notability. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Deprodded article on an iOS app released on May 28. Nothing out there indicates that we have sources available to meet WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 15:44, 16 June 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. Sandstein 18:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Citrino[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer, does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's only sources are boxrec.com, which isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. In addition, he fails to meet the notability criteria at WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both GNG and NBOX.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pe̍h-ōe-jī. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pe̍h-ōe-jī table[edit]

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

Not appropriate here, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a directory. The ChampionMan 1234 06:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge back into Pe̍h-ōe-jī, undoing its removal; no need for this to exist as a separate article. It's length was addressed by it being collapsed, it did not and will not make the article too long.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per JohnBlackburne. Seems the best option. Pe̍h-ōe-jī is widely used for Romanisation of Min languages and a table of its usage, while not a notable topic in its own right, is fit for inclusion in the main article. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:16, 22 June 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 14:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Ridge, Saskatchewan[edit]

(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 Ridge" 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. [42] [43] [44] [45] Past consensus for similar articles is that country/rural residential subdivisions (real estate developments) are not inherently notable simply for existing. Hwy43 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Hwy43 (talk) 05:26, 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]

Delete - A housing division with 10 houses on it that does not have its own governing body. Falls into the second paragraph of WP:GEOLAND. KDS4444^Talk 11:14, 26 June 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

River water disputes in Telangana state[edit]

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

Pure CRYSTAL stuff...there are no water disputes now....no problem to have an article if the disputes arise....but it makes no sense to predict them now and have an article about it! ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 02:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. If Telanga becomes a seperate state, then there are "concerns that river water disputes may arise". Article topic is pure speculation based on two currently uncertain conditions being met at some undetermined future time. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While still speculative in nature, the water sharing crisis of Telangana and AP has been discussed well by media.
- For Telangana, sharing water & power will be key challenge The Hindu
- Telangana could mean dry days for Andhra farmers Hindustan Times
- By the rivers of Telangana The Hindu.
  The issue of future-water-sharing crisis was also a major point of discussion while the two states split up. Telangana Bill gives key role to Centre in water management Deccan Chronicle. So its not all together a fictional problem. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:26, 10 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, —SpacemanSpiff 04:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When You Don't Have A Pen, You Die.[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 02:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrX. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG,WP:NBOOK, and WP:WEB (it is an e-book, after all). —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Author's page already deleted via AfD process: see WP:Articles for deletion/Gwen Chua. No reason for a non-notable work by a non-notable author to have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There are no sources at all about this book and none about the author. Given that the book cover is in English and the author's blog is in English, it's fairly telling that there are no sources for this book apart from this article. Given that the articles for the author were re-created so many times, I recommend salting this article after it is deleted because it will become necessary. I also note that there seems to be some socking going on here and it looks to be more than one account, so I'll be opening an SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a better look at the edits and it's such an obvious case of sockpuppetry that it's not worth taking to SPI, given how loud the quacking is and how backlogged SPI is at this point in time, so I've blocked the applicable accounts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly devoid of any sources, should really be a CSD except that doesn't cover books. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Randykitty per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MathQ[edit]

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

Unremarkable software. A search failed to find any coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The membership section reads like an advertisement and the article fails to explain the importance of the product. Piguy101 (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A look at the creator's talkpage shows that this is not the first time a math product has been deleted. Piguy101 (talk) 02:21, 16 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 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Completely non-notable. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 03:20, 16 June 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 per WP:CSD#G3 (hoax). Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwaku Tembo[edit]

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

Possible hoax. I can find no references to suggest that this person exists. Perhaps this is a character in a fantasy hockey league or work of fiction. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to a hidden comment in the code, the article is a joke page. It should be speedily deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 June 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. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maccabean Revolt[edit]

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

There is an article already called: Maccabees. No need for an extra or similar one. Jerm729 (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you kidding me? This event is unquestionably covered in multiple independent, reliable sources. The fact that there is already an article on a related topic does not take that away, even if their content overlaps significantly. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 02:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the Maccabean Revolt is a subject distinct from the Maccabeans; though it is what they are the most famous for (which, I assume, is the nominator's reasoning), the two topics (each extensively covered by suitable sources, per ZX95) are distinct. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The article itself references more than enough reliable sources to justify a keep. There is no way that this nomination is going to end in anything but a keep, so I recommend a snow keep per WP:SNOW. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The revolt is a topic that stands on its own, separate and apart from the Maccabees article, backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ZX95, הסרפד, Spirit of Eagle, Alansohn - Article: Maccabees covers the exact same thing if you actually read both articles. An article with reliable sources does not make a phony article legit for Wikipedia. Simply this, Maccabean Revolt is a WP:SA that covers some exact information as Maccabees covers more of the same. -- ♣Jerm♣729 03:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerm729: No, it does not. The Maccabees were a historically important family; the Maccabean Revolt was one war they waged. That, considering that the Maccabean Revolt has in-depth coverage in its own right, is reason enough for a separate article though it is a stub for now. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

הסרפד: The article is basiclly covering and using information from articles: 1 Maccabees and Hasmonean dynasty, Also, 1/4 of the reliable sources is a dead link. -- ♣Jerm♣729 03:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The revolt is a topic in its own tight. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly this article differs from Maccabees. Although this needs work, the subject matter is definitely notable. Why didn't the nom at least have a discussion on the talk page before making such a silly proposal? Chris Troutman (talk) 07:11, 16 June 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mat-Su Regional Medical Center[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. hospitals are not inherently notable, the fact that Sarah Palin gave birth to a son there doesn't add to notability. I could only find routine local coverage in the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman‎ LibStar (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Yet again, we find ourselves dealing with an AFD because of a poorly-constructed article? Sheesh.

The first problem herein lies in the apparent belief that the current or recent state of an entity is all we really need to know about. Anything of a historical nature tends to be shoved off into a ghetto, whether that means burying it in the revision history or in a separate article. When I was very young, I used to watch The Flip Wilson Show every week. In a recurring sketch, Wilson played the preacher of "The Church of What's Happening Now!" Whodathunk that such a name would more accurately describe the philosophy that many Wikipedians have towards crafting encyclopedic content! This hospital is the latest incarnation of a direct lineage going back to the establishment of the Matanuska Valley Colony in the 1930s. I haven't bothered to Google "valley hospital palmer alaska", the immediate predecessor of this hospital, but I can tell you that moving the hospital out of Palmer was a very controversial issue which did garner lots of coverage. Last I checked, NewsBank archives of the Frontiersman only go back to 2002/3, while that particular debate goes back a lot further.

The second problem should be more obvious, yet I'm continuing to see "I don't know what you're talking about"-type replies when I bring it up. Because Sarah Palin has become the darling of numerous corporate media outlets, people who lack any real knowledge of Alaska are content to follow along. The scores, if not hundreds, of gratuitous, coatracking references to Palin in the articles of every place she's had a cup of coffee in her entire life reached a fever pitch in 2008/9. It's subsided somewhat since then, but still, to this day, there are plenty of editors whose only frame of reference to Alaska is Sarah Palin, and carry on as if your only frame of reference to Alaska should also be Sarah Palin by virtue of their editing activity. If this is due to these aforementioned corporate media outlets, I shouldn't have to point out that one can simply go to those websites in order to get their idol worship on, and leave Wikipedia out of it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide actual links to sources or references? LibStar (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I can do a proper search at a location with access to NewsBank, or perhaps offline sources? Nifty tip: many local libraries offer free NB access to registered users. A proper history of the modern-day Matanuska-Susitna Valley would be in order. To give you the short version, the city of Wasilla went through tremendous turmoil related to growing pains while a colorful and flamboyant person served as mayor. No, not Sarah Palin, but rather Charlie Bumpus. Wasilla became a first-class city and generally boomed for miles around. Meanwhile, Palmer started to exactly resemble the kind of place that Marty McFly went back to. Having the hospital so far from the center of population became a years-long dispute. The main sticking point was the involvement of the Lutheran Hospitals and Homes Society in the Palmer hospital. (see below for more)

It may also help to point out that Alaska's certificate of need process has a history of controversy, which means that something such as moving a hospital doesn't proceed quickly (another hint: do documents of certificate of need proceedings exist on the state website?). This hospital is at a strategic location next to the Glenn and Parks interchange, which means that it serves Anchorage as well at Mat-Su (Eagle River, amazingly enough, lacks a hospital), and frankly, a pretty broad surrounding area (see for yourself where the nearest hospitals are in every direction except Anchorage). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a number of stories in the Anchorage Daily News from 1985 and 1986 regarding a failed proposal for a Wasilla hospital. This is how far back the immediate prehistory goes. LHHS's involvement figures prominently. So does Providence Health & Services. Since they didn't wind up with a stake, they operate a competing facility nearby. It's considered a "doctor's group" and therefore exempt from certificate of need requirements. This prehistory also explains the Wasilla facility (closer to the population it serves), even though it's in a different location than the proposed hospital site. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There really are too many stories over too many years in the ADN. As I have to run soon, here's a good example, from September 1, 1994, regarding Valley Hospital's plan at the time to establish a location of some sort in Wasilla:

(Alaska Department of Health and Social Services commissioner Margaret) Lowe's decision is the latest development in a long-running debate over whether the hospital better serves the Mat-Su area by branching out to the west where the population is growing fastest or by sticking to Palmer, where it has been established for nearly 60 years.

There's any number of other stories I could dig up if I felt like it. I did check the state website for CON info, but it's all pretty much recent info. The earliest info I could find was from 2006/7, or shortly after this hospital opened. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keeep There seem to be sufficient sources for an article. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism against Norwegian Air International Limited[edit]

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

A separation of just the criticism out of the main article, creating a heavily unbalanced WP:POVFORK. Material should be reintegrated into the main article, and that article better organized along topics rather than lumping all the criticism together. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete looks like someone's crusade against the airline. a heavily unbalanced WP:POVFORK as the nom says. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete No apparent need for this article Shii (tock) 01:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete as per nom. A personal crusade massaged to look like NPOV!!--Petebutt (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Could never pass WP:NPOV. Needs NPOV reintegration, per nom. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Reintegrate the criticism section into the main article, but in a more focused way. Criticism of the airline's labor structure is encyclopedic, but I'm not convinced that criticism of their flight delays is; nevertheless, both are mixed together here without any particular organization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)´[reply]
Keep Rather copy referenced sections back to main NLH article as this has been the main topic regarding Norwegian Air Shuttle in the newspapers in the Nordic countries for the last year. JHZ94 09:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a POV coatrack. A proportionate criticism section in the main corporate article is appropriate. Note also Timbo's Rule No. 14: "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." — "On the other hand, the airline continues to receive extensive criticism for its lack of care for their passengers suffering from numerous and prolonged flight delays.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]" Carrite (talk) 18:34, 18 June 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.