< 26 June 28 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Noemí[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sonia Noemí (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources, nothing found via Google. Huon (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMBd - not a reliable source, Rotten Tomatoes - mere mention of work, same with Amazon. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
El Nuevo Día article is about her book more than her. And Primera Hora is again more about her book than her, it does talk about her son but by these sources you could make an article about her book more than keep hers. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting coverage for your book, as an author, would establish notability so I see nothing wrong with the two sources above. I have zero proficiency in Spanish so looking for sources would be a laborious task for me. but in any case, I also dug up [14] which is from 2011 and has nothing to do with the book. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 30 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 A-11 Football League. Note that Chicago Staggs (A11FL), Dallas Wranglers (A11FL), Michigan Panthers (A11FL), and New Jersey Generals (A11FL) were never nominated, and I can not redirect them just like this.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Bandits (A11FL)[edit]

Tampa Bay Bandits (A11FL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a proposed team in a proposed football league (the A-11 Football League) does not yet exit and might not ever exist. It's already mentioned in a section in Tampa Bay Bandits, the article about the USFL team.

Right now, that's enough. It's premature to have an article about this version of the team, which at this point exists only as a recycled name and logo.

And, as a side note, I haven't looked for articles about other proposed A11FL teams, but if they're out there, they should also be deleted until / unless it becomes clear that they will actually exist. Zeng8r (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It must stay up so that other authors can find the appropriate articles and reference them. Sadly, once a page goes up, it's taken down WAY to quickly before it even has a chance to sprout legs. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other sources to reference; I've looked. The article fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines as there's just no news or info out there about the new Bandits. Since the initial announcement, the only mention of the team has been a single article on tampabay.com announcing that the showcase game was cancelled. The newspaper didn't even bother to put it into its print version, and no other news source seems to have picked it up, either. The team doesn't even have an official website, and the A11FL hasn't updated its own website or its Facebook or Twitter accounts in months.
As a kid, I was a huge fan of the original Bandits, so I was intrigued when I heard about the new version. Sadly, it looks like they might never actually exist. There's simply no there there. Zeng8r (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: These additional articles about A11FL franchises should also be included in this deletion discussion, since they also suffer from the same notability issues. Zeng8r (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 28 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 deckertalk 02:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Philbin[edit]

John Philbin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary sourced BLP with weak notability claim. Fails WP:ENT (does not have two major roles, North Shore might be significant). Fails WP:GNG (lacks independent reliable sources). SummerPhD (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 28 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. SpinningSpark 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal descendants of John William Friso[edit]

Royal descendants of John William Friso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the addition of sources since it was originally deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal descendants of John William Friso, Prince of Orange, this article still seems like original research to me and violates of Wikipedia policies against creating genealogical database. The sources are also just other genealogical sites sourcing the ancestry and relation of the immediate people in each sections and are unreliable sources for most serious articles. It just seems a hodgepodge of unreliable sources trying to validate an original research not found in actual reliable sources. The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 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 08:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| express _ 20:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is notable as it is a major topic for royal genealogists. For instance, we have Descendants of Charles I of England, and more specifically related to this article, Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hany Helmy Mendoza[edit]

Hany Helmy Mendoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator (who probably has a conflict of interest) without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 28 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 United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2014. j⚛e deckertalk 16:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Stefanik[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elise Stefanik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:POLITICIAN. She's a candidate who has never held elective office. She does not have sufficient notability outside of her campaign. This article should therefore be redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2014. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do as recommended above. If one day she holds a notable post then we may write an article about her. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office do not qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being candidates; unless you can verifiably prove that a person had already established enough notability to qualify for an article before they became a candidate, they do not qualify for an article on here until they win the election. No prejudice against recreation if she wins in November, but she's not entitled to keep an article on here as things currently stand. Delete or redirect per nom. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the fact that she won her primary and is the candidate of a major party for a congressional election is demonstration of sufficient notability. The article should stay.CFredkin (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability rules explicitly say that merely being a candidate in an election that the person hasn't won yet isn't a valid claim of notability by itself. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site, and the test of whether or not someone belongs in an encyclopedia is whether readers might still need information about this person five or ten or fifty or a hundred years from now — and in nearly all cases a politician has to win election to a notable office, not just run for one, to pass that test. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There seems to be agreement that the article needs improving, but AFD is not the place for that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial[edit]

Google Glass Breastfeeding app trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Intersection between a technological gadget and a human biological function does not scream notability. Perhaps if this was titled about the intersection of many technologies with breastfeeding this article would have a chance, but to sub-sub-sub specialize in such a odd intersection of subjects suggests that this is not notable outside one trial (of only 5 mothers). I note that the Breastfeeding article has no specific section about technology so this doesn't make sense as a valid spinout from that. When I PRODed the page, the primary author deleted the PROD and personally attacked me for exercising a judgement call regarding the notability of this trial. I also observe that the editor who has been advocating for this article, Smallworldsocial, is the one who is sponsoring the trial. This raises in my mind significant problems with WP:COI/WP:ADVERT/WP:NOTPROMO. Article had been declined multiple times while still in AFC with significant comments expressing concern about the notability of this trial program. Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Smallworldsocial hard redirects to Julie345 so we have an editor who executed a rename to attempt to bypass the COI restrictions by disguisising their agenda while at the same time maintaining 2 user accounts editing in the same subject area. Xeno as the renaming admin, would it be best to hard block the original name so that this unintentional flub in WP:SOCK rules (assuming good faith) is not repeated? Hasteur (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of what to do with the article, well, I was surprised it was moved from AfC in the first place. The trials were widely reported across the globe in mainstream media but there was no consensus anywhere (even amongst the organisers) as to what the trials were called. Usually a permutation of words using "Google Glass" and "Breastfeeding". FWIW my instinct is that the topic meets WP:GNG but the title of the article needs improving/interrogating. NB the Gold Questar Award was made to the "Breastfeeding with Google Glass App" and in my mind the trials were a process of developing this app. Sionk (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sionk It has been my understanding that COI (and subsequently the Non-Neutral Point of View) is a valid argument to introduce at AFD as a user who has a COI heavily promoting a article is grounds for carefully combing over it for the above mentioned reasons (COI/Advert/NOTPROMO). If the editor had stayed with the Julie345 account, I'd have never known that they were originally named Smallworldsocial and connected the dots with respect to Conflict of Interest. But they didn't and actively took the action of registering the old name back after the original rename and then using the old username to edit the article and talk page. While I'm willing to AGF on this sequence of flubs, I'm asking the admin who did the original rename to hard lock out the old username. Hasteur (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused. She's changed back to Smallworldsocial!! I nom'd Madeline Sands for AfD, so am aware of their single purpose here. Sionk (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The account Smallworldsocial appears to have started creating things back in 2010 (Special:Log/Julie345). On May 20th, it appears Xeno executed a WP:CHU request (Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple/Archive161#Smallworldsocial_.E2.86.92_Julie345) only to have the Smallworldsocial user come back when they logged into enwiki the very next day while signed into the Unified login (Special:CentralAuth/Smallworldsocial). Hasteur (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's very common and usually not intentional socking. With cookies and SUL, the old name sometimes gets automatically recreated and the user does not realize their new name is ready. Ask them to stop editing with the old name and use the new name. Softblock the old name if absolutely necessary. No comment on the article or behavioural issues. –xenotalk 12:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many errors in your response:
  1. Whether those other subjects are notable or not is completely irrelevant (also, a redlink proves nothing as far as notability)
  2. Notability is not determined by importance, but rather RS coverage, so the argument about 5 mothers is irrelevant
  3. The article was moved to mainspace by experienced reviewer Timtrent, not the page's author. After you declined it, Julie345 addressed your concerns and resubmit it. That is a 100% proper action, a desirable action even, not even remotely a "willful attempt to conceal the connection between the editor and the subject". I don't know why you insist on pushing the COI angle, but if you must do it at least get the facts straight. As it is, you are way off base with your accusations. While I'm sure Smallworldsocial/Julie345 has a conflict of interest, he/she has done nothing that indicates an intent to abuse.
  4. The fact that RS don't use a consistent name for the app, indicates it doesn't have a name, not that it is non-notable. We have MANY articles on events and things with no name; indeed, we even have guidelines on how to name such articles.
The only relevant question is does this app have enough RS coverage to indicate notability. Based on the 24 sources in the article, at least half of which are both reliable and significant, the answer is yes. When the app is named then of course this article will be renamed. It's not like I'm arguing the trial should have its own article once the app is out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am astonished by the arguments for keeping... You do realize that this "Trial" is only 5 mothers and ~10 "support staff". Essentially we're talking about a single classroom, and you're arguing for the notability of this? This would be like giving a Wikipedia article to every single university research department because they happened to be very good at getting their name out there. Even though we don't like to say that an individual AfD has no bearing on future ones, opening this can of worms is only going to lead to trouble. Hasteur (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're clutching at straws a bit now. You're not seriously suggesting the participants were sitting together in a small room for two months with their boobs out :) And I don't really understand why "trial" is in quotes. Why would it win an award if it wasn't valid? Are you saying we should delete all articles about people, companies and events that are "very good" at publicising themselves. Publicity is one of the main bases of general notability. Sionk (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is determined by RS coverage, not what we think about the importance of a subject. We do this precisely to avoid subjective arguments like the ones you (Hasteur) are making. As far as precedent, yes any company/product/person that manages to get dozens of RS to cover it in depth is notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't understand the passion about deletion. It's a fairly unspecial article about a fairly unspecial entity that happens to meet WP:GNG because it has valid referencing. I'm defending it precisely because it meets WP:GNG. I find the technology pointlessly annoying and I don't lactate, so I have no interest in breastfeeding. Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Hasteur's arguments have been proven FALSE. He didn't "debunk" anything and his accusations of improper behavior are flat out false. And your implication of meat puppetry or worse by myself (a "trusted admin" with 32k edits since 2008), Trimtent (=Fiddle Faddle, 44k edits since 2006), and Sionk (35k edits since 2008) is WAY out of line. I suggest you apologize immediately. Sionk commented on June 27, well before you. I saw this by chance on July 3 and by using Timtrent's name in my comment he was informed about this and commented. (Since he promoted the article to mainspace, he should have been informed of the discussion from the beginning. If Hasteur had looked at the article history instead of assuming incorrectly that Julie345 had moved the article to mainspace, he could have avoided making such incorrect accusations in this AfD.)
There is no conspiracy - just three experienced users who (gasp) understand policy regarding notability. BTW, while xeno ("a trusted admin"+bureaucrat with 89k edits since 2006) didn't comment on the article he did "debunk" the theory that Smallworldsocial/Julie345 had acted improperly. AfC is the proper venue for COI creation of article - if you don't like that then try to get policy changed to forbid such creations. (As it is, even COI creation in mainspace is not forbidden.) Until that time, you have no actual policy-backed argument to make - just a I don't think is should be notable non-argument. Again, an independent reviewer (Timtrent) correctly assessed that the article was neutral enough and subject notable enough to move it to mainspace. The only thing anyone has done improper is your assumption of bad faith against 3 very experienced editors. The article is way way short of unfixable advertising - the actual standard for deleting promotional articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User ThaddeusB i have not accused anyone or made a assumption of bad faith, making gossips through grapevine. I have stated the policy WP:NOPR straight forward. It happens that's why the policy have been made, I will advise you to not to take it personally, our goal as a wikepedian is to double check that something like This don't happen and as you stated "Hasteur's arguments have been proven FALSE. He didn't debunk anything and his accusations of improper behavior are flat out false" its not on you to decide, leave that decision for other admins. I will also advise you quit boasting about your edit counts, doing so will not provide notability to the article. Its not about personal attacks as you taking it, its about being right and wrong, This article is a crystal clear example of using Wikipedia as a tool for self promotion. Science.Warrior (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you most certainly have implied myself and two other experienced users have colluded or otherwise acted improperly: "after my 'strong delete' vote on AFD the article got three 'Keep' votes within hours! This AFD needs to be seen by trusted Wikipedia admins. I can surely foresee something fishy going on around here". And yes, I very much am going to take it personally when someone levels very serious accusations against me. You are the one who brought experience into it by calling for "trusted admins" to intervene, implying those of us who commented were not experienced or neutral - that is the reason I mentioned the edit counts. Of course my editing does not impart notability. Reliable source coverage imparts notability. This subject has it, no matter how strongly you wish it didn't.
It is fact that Hasteur's argument was debunked. He claimed the article was moved to mainspace by Julie345. That is false. It is not a matter of opinion - anyone can verify this by looking at the article history. It is also a fact that Julie345 did violate NOPR. She used Articles for Creation and attempted to create a neutral article, not an ad. The article was then accepted as sufficiently neutral by a third party with a ton of experience in AfC. Thus the article landed in mainspace through 100% proper means. If you want policy to say an article should be deleted if it was created through a COI, then you need to get consensus for policy to say that. At current, it doesn't. Policy says no ads and no non-notable subjects. This article is not remotely an ad and is clearly notable (as defined by policy no notability, not opinion). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 18:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Walsh (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

Tom Walsh (Jeopardy! contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article deleted as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant) 3 October 2010, then later userfied by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Article was un-deleted following Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Tom Walsh (Jeopardy! contestant) 8 June 2014. Article still fails to meet WP:BLP1E, and first page of Google search of "tom walsh jeopardy" does not return WP:SIGCOV of subject. Within the Google results:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 28 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. There does not seem to be any deletion rationale given by the proposer. Whether the article should be merged or not is an issue for talk page discussions, not AfD. Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Restaurant Karel V[edit]

Grand Restaurant Karel V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Instead of waiting till this article is destroyed by a merger, I suggest to remove it beforehand. The merge proposal of this article suggest that this Michelin starred restaurant is not notable enough for a place on its own and should better by added to a later written, partly double (Duitse Huis, this article) and in an advertising style written article. The Banner talk 19:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already consensus to merge this on the talk page of Talk:Grand Hotel Karel V, so an AFD is unnecessary. The nominator was the original creator of the article and even admits to bringing this here to escape consensus elsewhere. I'd suggest a good admin to close this as a bad faith nom. I have supported a merger but that's if no more info can be added actually about the restaurant. I know that some of the Dorchester's restaurants are notable in their own right and this might be too if it is well documented and made to resemble a restaurant article with decent reviews and info about the cuisine. In its present condition (with the history being irrelevant to the actual restuarant) it would be best to merge. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus between you and your friends, yes. Let us wait what the rest of the world thinks. The Banner talk 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, anybody who suggested a merge is a very experienced editor in their own right and would never support or oppose something they didn't actually agree with. In fact I'd say they're likely to be representative of what most other regulars would agree with. I've said that if you expand this with info on the cuisine and restaurant reviews it would be worth keeping in its own right. Contrary to what you think, I'm thinking in terms of what is more convenient for our readers and providing knowledge, not doing this out of some vendetta which you seem to think it's all about. As it is it barely has a few lines about the actual restaurant and the history info is redundant to the Duis article. Merging those few lines isn't problematic, but if you write a well researched entry with details on cuisine and reviews then it would be too bloated to merge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 28 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. and WP:SALT. j⚛e deckertalk 02:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Jem Star[edit]

The Jem Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published book, with no references -- or even a suggestion -- of real-world notice. Calton | Talk 18:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this I mean that the random IP removing the PROD as "vandalism" shows that someone is watching the article and that odds are that the same person will likely make an account and re-add the article at some point in time, so salting it would be a good pre-emptive measure. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 29 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Augustus Worthington[edit]

Erasmus Augustus Worthington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This plausible-looking article has been here for six years, but it is a hoax. Thanks and credit to new contributor GriffithKendall (talk) who has provided a detailed demolition on the article talk page, supported by Nicknack009 (talk). To their work, I would add that Worthington's supposed 1875 autobiography "My Life in Art" is not found in either Worldcat or Google Books, but his supposed photograph is found here and is actually a picture of one John Tregerthen Short. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know how reliable the Victorian Web is, and there doesn't seem to be any way to look at the history of its articles. I notice that Worthington does not appear in their list of illustrators. It seems to me possible that Pemberton08 (talk), the author of this article, managed to insert the words about Worthington. He certainly spammed references industriously within Wikipedia (which I will clean out once this is deleted), and he also did post about "Worthington" outside Wikipedia, e.g. here where he has added the image. Also, the article has been in WP since 2008, and disinformation flows regrettably fast from WP into the rest of the web. JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 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. Without prejudice to a redirect to Hillsong Music Australia j⚛e deckertalk 16:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man of Sorrows (Hillsong song)[edit]

Man of Sorrows (Hillsong song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 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. Consensus was that the film's available sources did not reach WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 18:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Place Off the Edgware Road[edit]

A Little Place Off the Edgware Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is a short film with no references or reasons for notability. Almost non existant information as well. Youngdrake (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been expanded but has not become anymore notable. --Youngdrake (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 deckertalk 02:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Incident Tracker[edit]

Support Incident Tracker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:PRODUCT. I see a lot of entries in blogs (like http://sitracker.wordpress.com/) and at paid directories (like help-desk-software.findthebest.com/l/18/Support-Incident-Tracker) and the occasional other source (like helpdesksurvival.com/support-incident-tracker-history.html) but if someone wants to research software like this, that's where they'll be drawn to. Wikipedia is not a link farm; it's a collection of notable subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 21:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Debian_Project_Leader#Project_leaders. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Collins (programmer)[edit]

Ben Collins (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_-_Rescue_list#Ben_Collins_.28programmer.29 Lentower (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. There are a few passing mentions in primary sources but a complete lack of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. The article has been tagged with a notability warning for over a year and nothing has changed. A lone discussion on the Talk page from 2 years ago concludes that the subject is not notable. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Running a large project over the Internet is not just "Keeping the lights on". It certainly takes much more skill than being a janitor.
In this case, Debian is a large project for a major variant of Linux being used by many people. Project management is also harder with volunteers. The programmers who volunteer on Debian are often immature with substantial issues that need to be resolved to help them be productive. So being Debian Project Leader needs many skills: including those of an excellent psychologist, a deep understanding of complex technical issues, and being able to motivate difficult people to improve Debian with the skills of a top-notch manager.
One doesn't have to be as famous as Reiser or Torvalds to be notable enough for a WP article. Lentower (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young Living[edit]

Young Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-noteworthy product, lacks multiple reliable sources about the topic to sustain an article. Only independent third-party source is a local news article about a lawsuit. Company that produces the product is also nonnoteworthy, comes across more as an attack page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed sources 3 and 4, with an explanation here: Talk:Young Living. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grayfell, does that mean that you found the other 5 sources noted above acceptable?Christopher Lotito (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I said on the talk page, I'm still forming an opinion. The two I removed just seemed like clear-cut undue and medrs problems which seemed egregious enough to remove immediately. If the article survives, the 2001 study and the student paper look to me like they'll need to go as well. This would be better discussed on the article's talk page, though. Grayfell (talk) 06:13, 20 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, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:54, 26 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, ‑Scottywong| chat _ 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you summarize what the articles say? To be honest, Young Living Essential Oils offer many benefits and The sweet smell of good health: Essential oils may be able to treat many ailments sound more like advertisements than news articles, at least from their titles (especially the first one). It would be useful if we had more to go on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The one in The Mountaineer actually does read as rather promotional, and looks to be the case of a small-town newspaper supporting a local practitioner of aromatherapy etc. In Politics & Government Week, the article is identified as being written by "News Reporter–Staff News Editor at Politics & Government Week" (a NewsRx publication) although a portion of it directly quotes the patent application. The News Gazette article discusses the purported health benefits of essential oils and aromatherapy, beginning with a discussion of human's capacity to distinguish smells (Axel and Buck's work), discusses a survey of local physicians and chiropractors about their interest in "therapeutic qualities of essential oils", some interviews with users and practitioners, some other aromatherapy research, and some discussion of the "raindrop technique" and its origins from Young Living. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just switched my vote from a delete to keep. I just read the article in the Salt Lake Tribune, which is a pretty major newspaper in a pretty major city: it discusses the subject of the article specifically and in relation to a lawsuit with another essential oil company. This looks now like clear evidence of notability to me (surpassing all mentions in FOX News broadcasts, at last!) KDS4444Talk 00:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share the details of that article, such as its name, author and date? Even better would be a link. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's this article, @Binksternet:which is about a lawsuit and not the company. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any Conflict of Interest, or relationship whatsoever, regarding this article. I've edited Joseph Mercola (another alternative medicine practitioner) previously and when I came across the news coverage of Young Living, I believed that it merited its own article.Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:00, 29 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. There are a number of weak arguments here, those on the "keep" side (of the "other articles exist" and "closely related to a famous person" variety) have been duly called out in the discussion. But there are fallacies on the "delete" side as well, some examples:

WP:NOTINHERITED, which is a section of an essay (not a policy), means relation to a clearly notable person is insufficient to establish notability. On the other hand it does not mean that relation to a notable person invalidates the notability derived from coverage otherwise. It is less clear whether coverage that is caused by such a relation is sufficient or not. Andrew Davidson has pointed out the coverage in BBC and Newsweek, an argument that has merit. The fact that there has also been "gossipy trash magazine" coverage as pointed out by Lankiveil does not invalidate whatever good sources may be there.

On balance, I see no consensus for deletion here and I don't think either side has produced strong enough arguments to call this a "keep" or "delete" based on any policy either. Merging may still be discussed on the article's talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Lopes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Laura Lopes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not real independant notability, only claim to notability is being stepdaughter of the Prince of Wales. TheLongTone (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So in effect you are saying that in the case of the British Royal Family WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply?. There is nothing of interest to say about this person, she merely merits a mention in the article on her mother.TheLongTone (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not even kind of what I am saying. She clearly has coverage from WP:RELIABLE WP:SECONDARY sources that prove her notability. I would not consider her important enough to write about but those sources clearly do and as they meet all wikipedia standards for for reliabilty and editoral oversight they matter.. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources do not establish her notability, since they all seem to be primarily articles about someone else. There really does not seem to be any substantial, in depth coverage of her.TheLongTone (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Her article is created because of her relation to a famous person ": see WP:NOTINHERITED. For the others, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. She attracts little coverage, and what there is is solely because of who her mother is now married to.TheLongTone (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED explicitly states that "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady or membership of a Royal house." --Soman (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say by those rules that Camilla is notable but the daughter is not.TheLongTone (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you will also be deleting the duchess of cambridges sister and brother's page too? they seem to be in the same page as Camilla's daughter. i see no reason for this article to be deleted, many articles including articles of dead people do not receive coverage at all, but they remain. (Monkelese (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the Duchess of Cambridge is a member of the current Royal Family, while her siblings are not, so I'd consider other notability criteria. Different countries have different rules on membership in a Royal house; the [UK's Royal Family] seems like the most analogous group to Soman's quote about a "public position that is notable in its own right". While it includes the subject's mother, it does not include the subject. Agyle (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While it's a little borderline, another thing I think should be considered is whether this is really a public figure or not, fair game for intruding into their privacy. One reason for lack of in-depth coverage is because, as people have pointed out, she hasn't done anything notable. She seems like a pretty normal person, and doesn't seem to have gone out of her way to attract attention; she just has famous family members. While WP:BLP's "presumption in favor of privacy" is directed toward limiting the type of coverage given to a subject, I think in the spirit of that, the question of the article's existence should also give this subject the presumption of privacy for an otherwise borderline notability question. As a point of comparison, consider her press-grabbing brother, who has many articles just about him, and is clearly a public figure. ––Agyle (talk) 01:53, 24 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, ‑Scottywong| converse _ 14:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree those sources provide significant enough coverage to establish notability, I think that's at least the right thing to disagree about, and it does seem that the nominator and some respondents may be using a generic meaning of notable, rather than Wikipedia's criteria. Agyle (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Osagie[edit]

Ricky Osagie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NSOCCER. Youth players are not generally notable. The subject himself didn't receive significant coverage in reliable sources. His death however did. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 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 keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jailbait[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jailbait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POVFORK from Age of consent Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obiwankenobi, the vast majority of the sources in the article, before Mangoe's split of the article today, were about jailbait images; you won't find many scholarly sources (which is what I think you mean by "high quality sources") discussing the topic of jailbait images (and I mean specifically credited as jailbait images in the sources, not sources that simply discuss sexualized pictures of minors). And there was only one "jailbait" image in the article, which, as noted here, was removed. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 28 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) 00:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Yrarrázaval Larraín[edit]

Ricardo Yrarrázaval Larraín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable individual. Unreferenced article. (Only two references are not really reliable) Diego Grez (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:22, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Food Fest[edit]

Latin Food Fest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Billed as an "annual" event in San Diego, California, this local event has been held exactly once so far (September 2013). Apart from the announcement article for the first festival in the San Diego Union Tribune [16], I can find no evidence of any other significant coverage in independent sources or that in any other way it passes the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events) or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The Union Tribune article was not written by their staff. The byline is "Wendy Lemlin, Special to the U-T". Wendy Lemlin is a free-lance writer who runs P5 Marketing Inc "We make web marketing cost-effective. We deliver new customers and sales. We help you master the web for profit.". Note that this event is a client of and produced by Diálogo Public Relations. The article about its CEO, Lucia Matthews, was created by the same editor and is also nominated for deletion. The hand of the company is also visible in two other articles about their clients Santa Cecilia Orchestra (Los Angeles) and Sonia Marie De León de Vega, both of which are notable but both written like PR releases/magazine articles and have required (or will require) extensive editing. Voceditenore (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Matthews[edit]

Lucia Matthews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this person passes the criteria for WP:ANYBIO. The one award was a relatively minor PR industry award from the Hispanic Public Relations Association. I can find no coverage of her anywhere that is not sourced from press releases. Note that her company, Diálogo Public Relations, is seven years old with under 50 employees with likewise zero coverage that is not press release based. Latin Food Fest, one of Diálogo's clients, is also nominated for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No compelling argument was advanced that the subject meets WP:GNG, there is no guideline or policy that would apply here providing specific guidance on the notability of academic journals. An essay, WP:NJOURNALS, exists, however, no argument was advanced that this journal meets it. The primary keep argument was an IAR argument for strongly leaning to inclusion for things we might use as sources within the encyclopedia, and I've (rarely) seen a similar argument get some weight in past AfDs, but I did not, here, find support for that argument strong enough to undermine consensus. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Bengali Studies[edit]

Journal of Bengali Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per earlier PROD nomination by another editor: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." (PROD was removed by page creator, who has been COI-revert-warring to include hugely overblown amounts of promotional fluff, and who has now been blocked for making legal threats too.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron, I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand several things here. I'll try to go through it in order. 1/ Not all peer-reviewed journals should have an article, for many reasons. Here are a few: A/ Some of the are so-called predatory journals, that obviously are not notable enough to be covered (unless they are so bad that they cause a scandal and get coverage because of that; see for instance OMICS Publishing Group and its hundreds of journals). B/ Other journals get started and disappear again after a short time. If this happens with a major publisher, the journal usually remains accessible anyway. If it was self-published, it may disappear without a trace, with perhaps only a few individual articles still available in institutional repositories or on authors" own websites, as long as those last. 2/ The citation indices are out of date. Nope, this journal is just too young. Citation indices rarely include new journals before they have shown A/ some staying power and B/ has been shown to make an impact as evidenced by articles in other journals citing it. Scopus, for example, is a database that might well cover a journal like this one. You can see their inclusion criteria here, and they are absolutely not related to whether a journal's marketing is successful. Scopus is one of the less selective databases, but from what I have seen of this journal, I strongly doubt that it will qualify for Scopus any time soon. Indexes don't take subscriptions at all. Journals are always keen on being included in them because it drives readership (which is why OMICS tried suggesting that some of its journals were MEDLINE indexed). Every publisher I've ever heard of will be more then happy to send them a free subscription in order to be selected. Authors don't like to publish in journals that are not indexed for the same reason: lack of visibility of their work. 3/ "Western journals are not that good at picking up journals on subjects in the humanities". Sorry, but that is incorrect, too. There are big indexes specialized in the humanities (such as the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, but there are also smaller, more specialized indexes).
If you look at WP:NJournals, you'll see that our inclusion criteria are actually more relaxed than those of the selective citation indexes. If a journal is included in even just one selective index, we say that it is notable, so our coverage should eventually be equal to the sum of all such indexes. I don't see, given point 1, why we should be even more relaxed. All predatory journals claim to be peer-reviewed. We don't have the means or the expertise, most of the time, to decide whether that is correct or not. Unless they have generated significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, we should not include such journals. Even if we should decide that only journals on Beall's list are predatory (thereby basically giving him the right to decide what goes into WP or not) and write an article on any other journal as soon as it is established, in the end we still would be left with articles on journals that disappeared without much trace after a short period, leaving us with unverifiable stubs. The journal under scrutiny here is still very young. It is impossible to decide at this moment whether it will stay. There is no coverage in third-party sources. We have no means of deciding that it is high-quality or only publishes crap or something in between. Article creation is, in short, premature. I hope this clarifies the issues and apologize for the lengthy response... --Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2012 is pretty recent for a journal in my eyes, but if you want to argue that that is long enough, you should realize that that makes the failure to be included in any database even more egregious. I have given above in my long answer to Peterkingiron examples of databases that include humanities journals, the argument that there is a bias against humanities is simply wrong. As for the interview, I assume that you mean this. First of all, it's a blog and therefore not a reliable source in the WP sense. Second, it's not really independent, as all it gives is the opinion of the editor on his own publication. And third, in that long interview, the journal is only mentioned because the interviewee mentions it once himself. Really not significant coverage, no matter how you look at it. Nobody said this was a predatory journal, just re-read my comments to Peterkingiron more carefully. Ad for the editorial team, it does not matter how important these people are, because notability is not inherited. In any case, as long as there are no sources for a subject, we cannot have an article on it. For academic journals we often take a shortcut by accepting indexing in selective databases as significant coverage, but we don't have that here either. As for the hostile editing, please have a look at our journal article writing guide and then also read WP:AGF. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sorry, if this was not a predatory journal (as per its proclaimed policies on its website), then why did you even bring that topic in this debate Randykitty, when we are discussing its possible deletion? Secondly, it is factually inaccurate to say that in that third party interview "in that long interview, the journal is only mentioned because the interviewee mentions it once himself". The very introductory line by that third party website mentions the name of this journal, and throughout that interview, the interviewer conducts his Q&A session on the basis of this journal alone. This kind of falsehood will bring this debate nowhere. True, that is not a "dotcom" site. But Skepoet is a noteworthy name in alternative humanities, and this segment of 'margnalia of radical thinking' where the journal editor's interview is published, earned some substantial critical acclaim among radical humanities groups. We cannot always have dotcom as the sole basis of accountability. Further, this journal is clearly assigned an ISSN by the Indian authorities in New Delhi keeping in line with the international policies, and so why exactly that should not be sufficient, and why do we need its index to be ratified by selective databases which we all know may not be favorable to this kind of new area studies? Lastly, people associated with premier Indian institutions do not bestow on this journal an inherited notability as it is being funnily suspected ("notability is not inherited"). Their association simply proves that this journal is accountable, and is peer-run and peer reviewed. Now can pleaseRandykitty and Future Perfect at Sunrise stop making these aggressive removals to this journal's wiki page and let it remain in its original form till this debate is over and a final call about its deletion is taken? Being malformed repeatedly by those clamoring for its deletion is surely a case of biased editing. If you think its should be deleted, why are you even bothering to edit it, and why cannot you simply wait till it is deleted? Thank you. SubhashboseINA (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2014 (Indian Standard Time)
  • Very briefly: "predatory": Peter argued that all academic journals should be kept and I gave arguments why that is not feasible. PLease read his and mine comments. "ISSN": having an ISSN is absolutely and completely trivial. "Interview": I gave three reasons why that interview is not "significant coverage". "Aggressive removals": all content is available through the article history for the duration of this AfD. There is no reason to keep that spam "live". "The very introductory line": Yep, indeed: it gives the name of the editor, followed by "editor of etc". Really in-depth coverage, that. Finally, if you don't have any arguments that are based in Wikipedia policy, then stop wasting our time and stop making personal attacks. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • After my cleanup of the article (stub), the COI issue is not really important any more as far as the contents go. The motivation to create one article to support the other really smacks of the potential beginning of a walled garden, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. As this page is in the Draft: namespace, WP:MfD is the proper venue. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 09:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nate the Great[edit]

Draft:Nate the Great (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Nate the Great|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, notability not asserted, too many issues to ever be encyclopedic as written. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:35, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Active Royal Navy Vessels in 1983[edit]

Active Royal Navy Vessels in 1983 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need this article? I don't think having Active ships per year is such a good idea, too much effort maintaining it. This article is an orphan so nothing links here - rather delete IMO it as all the info is available on other pages Gbawden (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tsogo sun[edit]

Tsogo sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

@KLMuller: @AlisonM321: @JamesBWatson: @Amatulic: @Ronhjones: @Timtrent: I'm not going to restate what has been said elsewhere, but instead am just pinging the involved people. Articles on this subject have been repeatedly deleted. Please see... [20] [21] [22]

Admittedly, I have not personally investigated the notability of this company, since it has previously been done. I do, however, think it is fairly obvious that the article needs to go away and both variations on the title salted so that that article cannot be recreated under yet a third username without being submitted to AfC. I think it's clear from the history that blatant attempts have been made to evade the 'oversight' of anyone previously involved. Reventtalk 07:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to the nominator, I would infinitely prefer a full rationale for deletion. I appreciate your links to other places, but a synopsis as a rationale is important. Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(As I mentioned above, the author of this article made several requests to me for help. For anyone who is interested, the substantial content of my response to those requests can be seen at User talk:AlisonM321#Your draft article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Google tells you that one newspaper once mentioned a subject is not enough to establish notability: it is necessary to look at the nature of the mention. Have you actually seen the Financial Times article in question? (The link you picked up from Google and quoted above will not give you access to the article unless you have a paid account.) The Financial Times article is merely a brief report that another company was considering selling its share in Tsogo Sun. "Mention", yes, "significant coverage" no. (WP:GOOGLEHITS, WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE and WP:ITSINTHENEWS are all somewhat relevant.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:58, 28 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) 00:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max Planck Institute for Human Development[edit]

Max Planck Institute for Human Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no sources not notable I+delete+things+alot (talk) 06:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optical power[edit]

Optical power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

looks like made up term, may merge to optical article. I+delete+things+alot (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kou Hing Hong Scientific Supplies Ltd[edit]

Kou Hing Hong Scientific Supplies Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm completing this nomination for IP user User:180.155.69.97. I do not currently have an opinion on the company or article. Their rationale is listed below, as taken from Talk:Kou Hing Hong Scientific Supplies Ltd. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about a non-notable company and might be a spam.The article on Chinese wiki which was translated from this article has been speedily deleted as a spam.--180.155.69.97 (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hongkong-related deletion discussions--180.155.72.174 (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 30 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. While many of the sources are indeed trivial or company based and the independent sourcing is thin, I accept that the the mweb article may be something to begin with and that the "keep" side therefore has enough merit for me not to call a policy-based delete on this one. The possibility of merging is still open to discussion on the article talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouma Rusks[edit]

Ouma Rusks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a brand, and reads like an advert for it. It is indeed an advert for the brand. I think a more suitable article should be created for the company that makes the brand, and elaborate on it. Otherwise, unless Wikipedia is now a marketing platform, I don't see the need for brands having pages. Cartney23 (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:54, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether other rusks might be notable, it is whether Ouma Rusks is notable. --Bejnar (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ouma Rusks is a brand of beskuit. My argument is that it should be identified as such, on the beskuit page. There are other more notable SA (and even non-SA) brands, and they don't have their own pages. Because then it all boils down to an advert.Cartney23 (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it deserves mention on the beskuit page. then make the appropriate edit. This is not a discussion of other rusks, but about Ouma Rusks. The article is not an advertisement, Ouma rusks (1) created a company (2) represents grassroots economic development in rural South Africa (3) were the first manifestation of post-WWII industrial (used loosely) development in South Africa (4) they have become an iconic brand. So there is a raison d'etre for keeping them in the encyclopedia, and they meet the notability threshold of WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 15:30, 21 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 05:04, 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. WP:CORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. j⚛e deckertalk 02:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rally Software[edit]

Rally Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several questionable references, narrowly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, but most importantly a grossly promotional tone that would require a complete overhaul to be encyclopedic. Deprodded by user with disclosed COI. While I'm uneasy with this, disclosure of the COI shows good faith and I don't think it should be an issue except insofar as the promotional tone of the article may be attributed to COI. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. This is a page consisting of factual, referenced company information. The company is traded on the NYSE, but in no way does this page solicit or attempt to be anything but a factual reference page. Is this any different than IBM, Volvo, McDonalds or any other company reference page? TPG (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:03, 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 no consensus due to limited participation. (WP:NPASR). However, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page, or perhaps just be boldly performed. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 20:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China Resources Building (Hong Kong)[edit]

China Resources Building (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable office building. No significant article content (Wikipedia is not a directory). Plenty of passing mentions on listings websites but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Can be merged with the China Resources Enterprise article in a new section. Similar article created by the same author deleted in March.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Philg88 ♦talk 04:13, 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, j⚛e deckertalk 00:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Multiple sources can be found.For example [24][25][26].I'm not sure whether they are independent of the subject.Actually,they do in Chinese wiki.--180.155.69.97 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references are acceptable for verification and will provide about a paragraph of text - I have reworded the submission to clarify that this is merge proposal.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:28, 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, NorthAmerica1000 05:03, 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 Keep but retitle. Several delete arguments were based on the poor quality of the methodology. This might be a matter for comment in-article but does nothing to detract from the subject notability, consequently, such arguments have been discounted. Several contributors suggested merging. This close has no comment on that and leaves it for further discussion on the article talk page SpinningSpark 18:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top 100 historical figures[edit]

Top 100 historical figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Such a study would have to be covered in secondary sources to be suitable for an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Top 100 historical figures of Wikipedia". There are different algorithms used by different research groups based ONLY on Wikipedia content. In this respect this is purely mathematical and statsitical determination of top 100 being of principle difference from the approach used by Hart who used historical and other type arguments but which can be dependent of a researcher. Nevertheless this is overlap of about 43 percent between the list of Hart and other groups. I add other references and links to research and methods of other groups. I vote to keep this article (but may be to make a small addition "of Wikipedia" to distinguish with Hart).--shepelyansky (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2014 (CET)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 01:55, 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, NorthAmerica1000 05:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with your way of reasoning, but in this case, it doesn't fit. It were French researchers, using mathematical and statistical methods from the Wikipedia database. And they came up with a Swedish biologist. So there is no subjectivity issue here. Only a notability issue. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of shopping malls in Canada pbp 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall Square[edit]

Cornwall Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN 252,502 square ft, 70+ store mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree as to the topic not meriting a stand-alone. A redirect would be more appropriate than a merge. This material -- at the time of both nomination and the above comment -- was uncited. The target (now) has cited mention of the mall, which is appropriate in size for an article on the city. Uncited material is not appropriate for merge, and it's silly to mid-AfD create the material with the purpose of only re-creating it again at the target. Epeefleche (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:24, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dan Karon, Citizen staff writer (January 3, 1980). "Cornwall enjoying boom of new shopping centres". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2014-07-01. [The city's economic development commissioner] credits previous...city planning...for the construction boom. 'It follows a sequence of events dating back...five years to when the city redeveloped the Water Street area,' he said.
  • Dan Karon, Citizen staff writer (November 19, 1980). "Cornwall draws industry". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2014-07-01. ...The major one was the opening of the $20-million Cornwall Square downtown shopping complex.
  • Dan Karon, Citizen staff writer (September 10, 1979). "Cornwall pushing for more industry". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2014-07-01. Moskowitz is quick to rattle off a list of major new developments such as the Pitt Street Mall, the Civic Complex and the Cornwall Square Shopping Centre.
  • Staff (February 28, 1980). "Cornwall planners approve another shopping proposal". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2014-07-01. ...noted that this is the third major shopping center being developed following the opening of the $21-million Cornwall Square complex. The two others are a $5-million addition to the Brookdale Mall and a $4-million centre along Vincent Massey Drive.
  • Dan Karon, Citizen staff writer (September 25, 1979). "Motorists winning, pet owners losing". Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved 2014-07-01. The Toronto developers of the shopping centre who will also manage it...their 1,000-car garage. ...the shopping centre provides jobs for about 400 people.
Unscintillating (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Scheurer[edit]

Randi Scheurer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's indicated she didn't win the primary. She doesn't meet standard of notability for politicians. Elassint Hi 03:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Elassint Hi 03:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Elassint Hi 03:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Elassint Hi 03:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 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 02:26, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:16, 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 merge to Alcatel Mobile Phones. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatel One Touch[edit]

Alcatel One Touch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been fighting an "unconstructive editor" here and I noticed that this is poorly laid out and barely sourced. The three sources are all from the company website; no outside sources. Based on this, I nominate for deletion. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing the suggestions for a merge, I also would be as much in support of a merge as a keep. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:07, 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, NorthAmerica1000 02:27, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:15, 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 merge to Jeff Dunham. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jeff Dunham performances[edit]

List of Jeff Dunham performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NTOUR, which I think is applicable here. Without verification and discussion of the topic (in this case, these series of performances, not just some individual review), this does not pass the notability guidelines. In fact, there really are no references for anything here at all. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 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 keep. j⚛e deckertalk 02:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Martinez (musician)[edit]

Oscar Martinez (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly made article about a non-notable person. I'm nominating at AfD as the "links" seem to be some sort of general citation, and to clear up any doubts about the subject's notability. It may also be worth noting, that while "Oscar Martinez" is the name of a character on the US version of "The Office", this person probably exists. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if somebody can provide a reliable source about Martinez, I will withdraw my nomination. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 03:55, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:25, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:03, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Lounge Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fortune Lounge Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another user thought this a spam, and nominated for speedy deletion - I'm not so sure, as it has some genuine criticism, so I declined it. So, some wider discussion is needed to determine if this article should be deleted for being too promotional. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:56, 19 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) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:02, 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. I don't think this needs to be salted yet, since the article has been re-created only once in this form and the close of the previous AfD in a sense left the door open for a re-creation. If it pops up again, however, G4 and salting may well be appropriate. Deor (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joost van den Broek[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joost van den Broek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article that is already removed twice and recreated without the use of WP:REFUND. Article is quite promotional and the biography section is completely unsourced. The discography is only sourced with external links. Notability is doubtful. The Banner talk 11:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:01, 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. Deor (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solution 7[edit]

Solution 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks reviews, charting, gold. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 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, NorthAmerica1000 04:00, 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. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetonomics[edit]

Aesthetonomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODed as a non notable neologism ( a staggeringly small number of hits on Google): PROD removed with a rationale I don't quite understand, but part of it appears to be a wish to promote the term. It also says something about explaining the term, but I really don't think the existing article coherently explains anything, quite the contrary. TheLongTone (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 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, NorthAmerica1000 03:57, 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. Deor (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Spiegel[edit]

Karen Spiegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article and fails to meet WP:NPOL standards. – S. Rich (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was probably harsh. When I saw the article it was basically an one liner of she's the mayor of this city so maybe I was a tad dismissive. You've since added some more content which is helpful. I agree it can be quite subjective. Could you find anything from national newspapers? Cowlibob (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do little more than confirm what she is, a local politician, and do not add to notability. And per the Press-Enterprise story, the mayor's position is simply an enhanced council member. I believe, without research, that her position with the Transportation Commission comes about simply because each city gets to provide a member. If she'd be making noteworthy accomplishments as mayor, councilmember, or TC member, we'd need to see it. But I don't think this article as WP:POTENTIAL. (I will add that the mayors for other large cities in Riverside County, California, i.e., Riverside, California, Moreno Valley, California, and Temecula, California do not have articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)17:20, 29 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 Warriors (novel series)#Crookedstar.27s Promise. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crookedstar's Promise[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Crookedstar's Promise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Children's fiction book that fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 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, NorthAmerica1000 03:08, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AppalArts Magazine[edit]

AppalArts Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable new magazine. Current provided references are a summary of a conference presentation by one of the founders, some blog posts, and a link with no apparent connection to the magazine. --Finngall talk 02:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 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 merge to Humor. After merge, delete without leaving a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humor (positive psychology)[edit]

Humor (positive psychology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge and delete. We already have Humor, Theories of humor, and Humor research. This article is self-referential (it cites other Wikipedia articles multiple times), and is otherwise mostly sourced to a single work by the creator of Positive Psychology. It appears to be part of an effort to promote this theory using Wikipedia. Revent (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. Use/application of humor in positive psychology is not different and distinct enough from Humor to warrant a new article. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 19:50, 20 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 02:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete (i.e. no redirect necessary). Does not warrant separate article as well as Humor. --Boson (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Snow keep. Kept, keeping ratified at DRV, this re-re-nomination posted slightly over an hour later; no chance this will pass David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of One (Ra material)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Law of One (Ra material) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book series is not notable and does not have enough significant coverage and notable, reliable sources to justify an article.

This article is permitted to be under another AFD nomination in accordance to Roy Smith's approval: "If somebody wants to bring this back to AfD for another discussion of the merits of the article itself, they're free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)" --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objection - I am following Wikipedia policy and acting within what is freely enabled and permitted. I have not acted against any general guideline and I will accept the inevitable consensus these discussions will bring. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will now address the statement of "a desire to delete at any price." I desire to see this article covered significantly and reliably. I am using the deletion process to audit this article and its sources, and maximize the amount of scrutiny this article and every article deserves. As the article currently stands, I believe the article is best deleted while its potential rebirth and future is determined by better sources. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 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 redirect to Vancouver School Board. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Annex[edit]

Roberts Annex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN school that provides education for children grades K-3. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would be a reasonable alternative. Epeefleche (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G2 TEST / G3 HOAX ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maleficent - The end of the MU Campus (Video Game)[edit]

Maleficent - The end of the MU Campus (Video Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a video game. I am unable to find any evidence that it exists, let alone that it is notable. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 01:12, 27 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) 02:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roswell Road[edit]

Roswell Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article talking about 2 different roads called Roswell Road (one in Atlanta and one in Marietta) as if they were the same road. They are not. Georgia guy (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning, but this article could be reformatted as a disambiguation page, not deleted. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 05:05, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polnische Wehrmacht (World War II)[edit]

Polnische Wehrmacht (World War II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a result of a simple misunderstanding. A formation called Polnische Wehrmacht never actually existed in the Wehrmacht and cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, because the title is borrowed from a common phrase in the German language and simply turned upside down. In that regard the article is a non-notable hoax. Adolf Hitler said: The task of the Wehrmacht is to destroy the Polish armed forces (die polnische Wehrmacht)... quoted from the 3 April 1939 directive for a plan of German attack against Poland.[31] Poeticbent talk 00:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The result this Freudian Mumbo Jumbo is a whole bunch of paradigms piling up, one upon the other:

  1. Polska Siła Zbrojna existed in 1917, not in 1944 (wrong war !!)
  2. Legion Orła Białego was from Stalinist Poland, not from Nazi Germany
  3. Waffen SS Polen never took off, it was an idea
  4. Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor died in 1637 over three hundred years earlier, the best joke by far!
    Poeticbent talk 02:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 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 speedied as copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 00:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 greatest Indian films of all time[edit]

The 100 greatest Indian films of all time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subjective list presented by a single source, no evidence that this list (not the films but the actual list) is notable BOVINEBOY2008 00:05, 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.
More