< 2 June	4 June >

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

The result was delete. In principle this could be a tough close since there is nothing to prevent the topic of "progressive conservatism" (even if it is a Contradictio in terminis) from being notable. However, the arguments brought up here for this specific article are all on the side of SYNTH/OR, and an incidental use of "progressive legislation" in a conservative context doesn't change that. Besides, two of the three keep voters don't actually present any arguments at all, just assertions. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive conservatism[edit]

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

This article is synthesis. While various conservatives have been described as "progressive", there is no consistency in what is meant and no literature about "progressive conservatism." The Conservative Party of Canada was at one time called the Progressive Conservative Party after a former leader of the Progressive Party became their leader, and the page was originally created as a re-direct , although they never described their ideology as that.

The article describes it as an "ideology that incorporates moderate progressive ideas alongside conservative principles," and provides Bismarck and Disraeli as examples. But neither premier was ever described as "progressive conservative." It then lists various people who have been described as progressive conservatives, or both progressive and conservative - including U.S. presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Taft and Eisenhower, and UK premier David Cameron - without providing any source that links them together or explains what is meant.

While there may be a temptation to try to find a single definition and then edit the article to reflect it, it is probably better to "Blow it up" until and unless someone is able to do that.

TFD (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TFD (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a freewheeling original essay, a violation of WP:NOR. Blow it up. Here's one encyclopedic topic: Ideology of the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party. Here's another: Ideology of the "Bull Moose" Republican Party. From Bismarck to David Cameron??? Ugh. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Progressive conservativism is obviously the pragmatic philosophy of The Leopard: "everything needs to change, so everything can stay the same". This is not mere satire but the explicit policy of many such politicians. See, for example, The Political Culture of the American Whigs: "European conservatives in the nineteenth century sometimes found that progressive legislation suited their purpose as Bismark and Disraeli well illustrate...". The worst case is that one would merge into some similar political label such as Progressive Conservative. Insofar as there have been major political parties with this name, deletion is out of the question as we certainly require disambiguation and redirects to assist navigation. Andrew (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your source says that conservatives consider "a measure of progress is desirable to forestall more drastic upheavals." It does not call them progressive conservatives. TFD (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The terms appear commonly attached in descriptions of various people and ideas, but as noted it's not clear that there's a distinct and discrete concept here, or one that links, as the page tries to, Bismarck, David Cameron and Teddy Roosevelt. Different authors are mostly using it, sometimes in different ways, as a broad description for those who they want to suggest are not outright reactionaries, when they might as easily have used, and probably do in a different sentence, "liberal" conservatism, "moderate" conservatism or any other synonymous qualifier. And we have a page on the former already, while the latter redirects to it. A disambiguation page is probably necessary, given that the term is used in some party names, but I'm not sure there's any coherent substantive content that isn't better placed elsewhere. N-HH talk/edits 13:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While it certainly needs a lot of work (mainly expansion), this topic is notable, and has reliable sources. Johnny338 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is certainly notable, it just needs some cleaning up. Staglit 21:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

But what is the topic? That's the point: it's not clear that we have anything more than the random confluence of a noun and a qualifying adjective, as opposed to a coherent and discrete topic formally known by the specific combined term across third-party sources. And, in any event, does the broad term mean anything different to, say, Liberal conservatism? More generally, brief and bold assertions that "this topic is/seems notable", without further explanation, are deployed far too often in AfD discussions and really don't help clarify anything. And it may have sources but the question is what those sources actually show. N-HH talk/edits 21:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 01:05, 4 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 Jannat. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hob Gamed[edit]

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

Delete or Merge with Jannat. Totally unsourced article about a studio album by Jannat, with no indication of why it would need a separate article. The only "reference" leads to a webshop, confirming that the album exists, but nothing else. Thomas.W ^talk 15:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect with Jannat and possibly block User:JannatChannel for WP:COI editing. No evidence this article is notable and article itself is little more than a track listing. PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:25, 4 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. It is preferable to not close an AfD with only three !votes in it, but a. the article is in an atrocious state (citing only a library holding and an Amazon link), and the references brought up in this AfD are little more than brief mentions in sources one cannot call reliable even if they weren't fringy. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here's a trout for me *slap* for not checking the history well enough, and a big fat one for User:Immanuel Thoughtmaker *SLAP*, for pruning too much and deleting the one single source, this book, that could have helped stave off deletion. As it is, though, it's only one, one single reliable discussion--not enough to make me overturn myself. Thoughtmaker: this pruning operation of yours verged on disruption. Please don't do that again this drastically during an AfD discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of One[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not following Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Additionally, see WP:FRINGE. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I will disclose that I like this book's ideas to varying degrees but the article as it stands is a very slanted, mystical interpretation of the book's content. This article is without any significant sources that are established and outside the loose inner-circle of new age spirituality. This article should return when it has notable academic and/or public recognition. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage in neutral or critical sources, even though it is mentioned in a lot of New Age books. Therefore it appears to violate WP:FRINGE and it's impossible to write a neutral article based on the existing sources. Possibly some reviews or press coverage exist from the time of publication; these might provide background and balance and allow keeping the article, but at the last AfD no such sources were provided. At the last AfD it was asserted that some citations from apparently New Age books were actually critical of this theory, but no evidence was provided, and no section on criticism or reception has been added to the article. The subject can be treated either as literature, in which case it needs reviews in publications able to perform literary criticism, or as fringe science, in which case it needs some analysis of the theories by mainstream thinkers. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Well, the subject/article is notable and there are reliable sources.Colapeninsula's arguments are nonsense and irrelevant of wikipedia policies and guidelines.. The main argument for deletion should have been "original research"; as there are lots of irrelevant and nonexistent deductions in the article, which counts as pure OR. The current state of the article is beyond control; it needs lots of efforts and nerves to edit towards a lean, concise and "formal" wikipedia article.. Logos5557 (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the policies at-hand, the article does indeed lack a professional structure which would be provided by neutral sources, if they existed. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such definition in wikipedia as "neutral sources".. Instead, there are "neutral point of view" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral) and "reliable sources" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) concepts in wikipedia.. By using "reliable sources", users should provide "neutral material" to the articles.. Reliable or not, sources can not provide any structure to a wikipedia article.. That responsibility is upon the shoulders of users.. For example, many users do not even understand what kind of "reliability" is meant by the phrase of "reliable sources".. Logos5557 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is expected, within policy, that sources are not questionable and are not simply based on personal opinions. See WP:QUESTIONABLE. Using questionable sources for an article compromises the structure of an article. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, relies completely on following reliable sources. An article based on anything but reliable sources is not a valid Wikipedia article. See WP:OR. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:SYNTH for providing structure for an article by contriving a point outside the context of a source. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're just dancing around.. See my reply above one more time; you "synthesized" a "neutral source" out of nowhere, and now you are talking about something else irrelevant of your "miraculous synthesis".. If you do not want to defend your last position, that's understandable.. However, please do not just throw policies and guidelines -which no one argues against- to imply a point.. See WP:WL(clauses 2 & 4) and WP:GAMING.. Logos5557 (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "neutral sources" is clearly and meaningfully synonymous with the stated policies. Sources should not be personal opinions. This discussion has been very enjoyable. Thank you. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Instead of deletion, the article can be reverted to the last stable, lean and "formal" edition/version, and protected. User yossarianpedia seems to be the main/original editor of the article. There are also some valuable contributions afterwards from other users as well. So, interested parties can discuss about the version to be reverted and protected. Logos5557 (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using what sources? --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the essence of your proposal by removing all unreliable sources and the associated material in accordance to WP:FRINGE and general policy. We are left with a stub of an article without any content that doesn't rely on the primary text itself. I do not believe this meets Wikipedia's notability requirements as it stands. In fact, from the start, the article has never certifiably established its notability. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend references [1] (end of page 191 and first 2 paragraphs on page 192), [2] (page 53), [5] (page 53), [7] (page 188), [15] (page 60) from previous deleted version of the article here. There might be additional reliable sources from the current version as well. Logos5557 (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is not significant in the first source, "Souls of Distortion Awakening By Jan Wicherink", it is also an unreliable source under WP:FRINGE; The second, "Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits", may be reliable but the coverage is not significant enough to justify notability; The third is unquestionably a WP:FRINGE source and is not reliable no matter the amount of coverage; The fourth and fifth are of the same nature. None of these qualify. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, assuming all of these were reliable, there would not be enough material within all of them to create an article that is larger than a stub. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your grasp of wikipedia policies and guidelines are quite weak, and I do not have sufficient motivation to argue about your incorrect judgements/comments.. Nevertheless, your motivation in editing and your efforts should be encouraged/applauded.. This article is not about a physics theory, in which a fringe/paranormal point of view is given undue weight than others.. If the subject is completely fringe, paranormal or new-age, as in this article, then WP:FRINGE do not fully apply.. Because WP:FRINGE mostly talks about the fragments of "point of view"s in an article, not standalone subjects.. Nobody is trying to make this article's subject as mainstream, it will be accepted/regarded as fringe for decades perhaps.. Therefore, nobody can/should expect a fringe subject to be covered in the sources other than fringe, because this is not going to happen.. The reliable sources I mentioned, are satisfactory for the purpose, that is to make the subject notable and qualified to have an article in wikipedia.. When these reliable sources are added to this stub article, then it meets wikipedia's requirements. The rest is to approach an admin to ask for a protection for the article, so that editing would be limited. Logos5557 (talk) 23:19, 8 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) 01:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RedHack[edit]

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

Dubious subject with wording that implies COI. Sources are similar and likely partisan. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may well be that recent additions were the work of someone with a COI but there's no way to prove that at this stage and it wouldn't really have any impact here anyway - COI is not a reason for deletion. The "see also" lists could be cut right back and there's some ref-spamming going on. But I think there are enough sources to substantiate notability in this instance:

I can't see anything particularly partisan there - almost all are commercial news sources including some international sources. The article needs work but that's not the purpose of AFD. WP:MOS issues can be resolved through normal editing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I agree with [User:Stalwart111]]. This article has been edited by close to 20 different registered users, including at least one administrator. There is a lack of conformance to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but that's not a reason for a deletion discussion. It has a plethora of cites. (I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a 'Marxst-Lenninist' hacker group, but that's a problem that can be solved by a text elaboration). WP:COI, that's hard to discern, considering there's been 20 or so registered editors and not an argument for an AfD. And how can any article be a dubious subject? What does that even mean? 'Partisan'? Does that mean WP:POV? That's not a reason for an AfD; besides, who can tell with this article - it has not been developed enough. Keep, and sort it all out by WP:BRD, not drive by tagging. - Neonorange (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep Needs to be abridged somewhat, but there is no reason at all for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once again, Google is my friend: it was not difficult to find plenty of references to this group, though I certainly had to wade my way through a lot of social networking and self-published sites along the way. They appear to be fairly obviously notable (though I'd not let any of them near my computer!). The editor who proposed this deletion has clearly not done his homework. :-) RomanSpa (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources already cited establish notability; there are a variety of sources, and of English articles I read, I just don't see a partisan bias. Specific issues of concern (conflict of interest or partisan sources) in the article should be handled through the normal editing process, not through article deletion, according to AfD guidelines at WP:BEFORE. Agyle (talk) 18:14, 5 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Service Corps[edit]

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

An advertisement, but an ambiguous advertisement. Both listed sources are published by subject. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think they may be notable, but the article is unfortunately worded as a blatant advertisement (e.g. "Perhaps the most enriching part of your cultural immersion experience with GSC" and would take a complete rewrite to be acceptable. Better to delete it and start over. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think they need some more sources, and a NPOV rewrite, but the article as it is now is unencyclopaedic. Z10987 (talk) 01:34, 10 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teslascope[edit]

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

An almost entirely WP:SYNTH article which expands far-fetched claims from "The Wall of Light: Nikola Tesla and the Venusian space ship, the X-12". Tesla himself does not appear to have ever referred to such a device - it appears to have originated with Matthews, a Tesla mythologizer. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the lowest common denominator in all this, Arthur H. Matthews or delete. Means creating an article but there seems to be enough pop-culture noise to merit a mention somewhere in Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inadequately source junk science. A hoax? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above reasons. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 07:02, 7 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 - effectively withdrawn and with no outstanding !votes in favour of deletion (non-admin close). St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Johnston[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation page that contains no entries with valid wikilinks. I asked for speedy when it had only two entries with no wikilinks, now we have six. But it seems there is not ONE Ryan Johnston notable enough to have a WP article, let alone two, so I don't see why we need a disambiguation article. ubiquity (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep User:Ubiquity should read MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL. 6 valid entries and valid see also. Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boleyn. No valid reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not seeing the issue. If some guy named Ryan Johnston is in a notable band, but isn't notable himself, you create a redirect. How you deal with a situation where a redirect is needed for multiple people with the same name if not through a disambig page? Bali88 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABRL. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acquiesce - I read the noted articles. I stand corrected. But does this mean that everyone who is mentioned in an article, even if not sufficiently notable to have their own article, is entitled to have a redirect to that article under their own name, or an entry on the disambiguation page for that name if one exists? MOS:DABMENTION seems to suggest that. ubiquity (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what it means. If only one of the mentions existed, a redirect to that mentioning article could be created. Since there are multiple such redirect targets, a disambiguation page is needed; it's effectively a soft redirect with multiple targets. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 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. AfD is not for clean-up. Nomination has received no support. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chiles-Whitted UFO encounter[edit]

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

The article consists almost entirely of original research. What little sourcing there is references questionable sources. The subject does not seem to have significant notability, however if any mentions can be found we might end up stubbing this down and merging it into one of the UFO Flap list articles. The only sources given are two UFO encyclopaedias (clearly questionable sources), and a book about UFOs published on a WP:FRINGE website. Unless reliable sources can be found this article also fails notability criteria. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm having trouble spotting the original research. The Chiles-Whitted encounter seems to have a lot written about it. The sources could be improved, but this seems like an obvious keep to me. Bali88 (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My claim that this is OR stems from the fact that nothing at all in the article is reliably sourced. I've updated my notice to reflect this. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. I'm not sure I'd define original research in quite that way. Bali88 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor I. Material based on unreliable sources is different to material based on no sources at all (WP:OR). But I get where the nom is coming from. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart's definition of OR is a good working definition, an expedient one. But when it comes down to it, OR, like so many WP rules, is simply ad hominem and violates AGF; there is no way of telling the difference between something created out of thin air and something for which no sources can be found. Far better to ignore the term OR altogether and just say it is unsourced. Anarchangel (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - because the notability of subjects is not based on the sources listed but on the sources available and there are several others. It looks like almost every book that (rightly or wrongly) treats "UFOlogy" as a "science" to be studied includes this incident, especially given the alleged involvement of reliable witnesses (commercial pilots and Air Force personnel). It is included in fairly non-fringe books (some of which actually provide "ordinary" explanations for various sightings) like:

And in more fringe books like:

Scientific UFOlogy: how the application of scientific methodology can analyze, illuminate, and prove the reality of UFOs

I think there's probably enough there to consider this a notable event or claim, even the veracity of the claim is disputed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The trouble with the topic of UFO's is that we have a different standard when it comes to sources. For example, I wrote an article about African American names. For sources, I read books and articles about the study of names and the study of African American history written by experts in those fields because that's where you learn about this topic. That's how you find sources for any topic: you look at books on that topic. When it comes to UFO's, if the source is a book about ufo's people automatically say "Well, it's an unreliable source because it's about UFO's". It sort of sets up a nearly impossible situation because the second a source covers the topic people say "Well, that's unreliable because it covers fringy things". So to say that a topic isn't notable because it's only covered in books about UFO's...by that logic no source could ever possibly count because the second a source covers it, we exclude it. Does that make sense? To me, the notability of this topic is demonstrated by the fact that it's mentioned over and over and over in these books about UFO sightings. It's clearly a topic of interest to a lot of people. To me that proves notability. In terms of reliable sources: I think as much as is written about it, we can surely find some reliable sources saying "seriously guys, this UFO sighting is bogus!" if we keep looking. Bali88 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the first two sources I listed above are exactly that. Coverage from "sceptics" who claim the sightings are bogus but nonetheless take the time to refute this particular sighting because it is high profile. When even the sceptics acknowledge it's a notable UFO sighting (or "sighting"), I think we probably have enough. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bali88. The problem with using fringe sources and sources that exploit the topic with flashy claims and sensational conjecture is that they aren't objective. If you wrote an article based on such sources it would say evidence of UFOs is being hidden by a government conspiracy and ancient aliens built the pyramids. Like it or nor, UFOs are a fringe topic and WP:FRIND applies. - LuckyLouie (talk)

Agreed. And I totally get that. I'm not really arguing that we need to use all those books as our sources. But I think we also need to be careful not to outright reject those mentions when discussing the notability of a topic. A lot of people are a little quick on the draw to discount these sources as relevant (which, frankly, seems like an IDONTLIKEIT vote to me). The fact that book after book, however unreliable it may be, is mentioning the topic proves that it's a notable topic. Because often that's the reasoning people use in these discussions--that it isn't getting the right kind of mentions so it's not notable. We can present a fringe topic without giving credibility to what unreliable people are saying. If these sources are saying that the government is covering stuff up and a government official says "these allegations are patently false", we can present it in that way and that fits well within wikipedia guidelines. Bali88 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very often no objective commentary exists regarding UFO claims that are highly popular among fringe and conspiracy sources; one can typically find dozens of websites and books breathlessly repeating and often embroidering stories and rumors as if they were factual. I would avoid characterizing editors who seem to be too quick on the draw as somehow biased against a certain topic when they are actually biased against having the encyclopedia give undue credibility to nonsense that purports to be real. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And suppose that "nonsense" is also discussed in books by UFO debunkers who disdain the subject as much as some Wiki editors? Does that not undermine your claim that only "fringe" sources are discussing it, and thus the details involved can't be trusted? What credentials qualify a source as trustworthy in the UFO field? I'm perfectly aware of Wiki requirements, but what about scientists who've written about UFOs, like J. Allen Hynek or James McDonald? Are they also "unduly credible"? What about debunkers? I've discussed this issue below, but I know from looking at articles that some editors delete material from UFO articles while having no clue about the incident or the sources - they just assume that if it has "UFO" in its name, then its automatically an unreliable source and can be deleted. 184.3.105.42 (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slenderman isn't real either, but it's relevant culturally and we have a wikipedia article on that without purporting that it actually exists. The fact that a certain UFO sighting is popular among fringe and conspiracy sources proves that it has cultural relevance. I realize there are people who are against having anything but serious topics, but imo cultural topics are just as important. Bali88 (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources claiming eyewitness sightings of Slenderman as far as I know. And I've yet to come across an editor who wants to delete articles about offbeat fictional subjects that are explained by by reliable objective sources as being offbeat and fictional. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are UFO debunkers such as Dr. Donald Menzel and Philip Klass also considered "fringe" sources? I'd be interested to know, because I have seen numerous UFO articles on Wikipedia in which skeptical editors delete large sections of material from the article because they're sourced only to "fringe, unreliable" sources, when in fact these same incidents are also mentioned in books by UFO debunkers like Klass and Curtis Peebles. If prominent UFO debunkers - including astronomers like Menzel and aviation historians like Peebles - also mention these incidents (and often feature the same details that are included in supposedly "fringe" sources), then does that not undermine your argument that the information can't be trusted because only "fringe" sources use them? To be specific, are debunkers considered fringe sources, no matter their credentials? Moreover, are "ufologists" that have scientific credentials, such as Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Dr. James McDonald, and Dr. Bruce Maccabee, to be placed into the same "fringe" category as people like Art Bell? Where's the line? 184.3.105.42 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know as much about the topic as others do, so I'll defer to others who are more "in the know" to determine what people and sources are reliable, but I suspect that what I mentioned above is what is going on: people are seeing a book about UFO's and immediately deciding it's unreliable because it's about UFO's without doing any investigation. Bali88 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well-taken, there are many others who think they are "in the know", but actually know almost nothing about the specific incidents these articles discuss or the quality of the sources that are cited to them. Yet these editors have no problems with deleting material as "fringe" or "unreliable" because, as you wrote, they simply assume if it has "UFO" in its title its automatically unreliable. To cite just one example, on the Project Sign talk page there were two editors who were trying to delete sources involving Edward J. Ruppelt, an engineer and Air Force officer who served as the supervisor of Project Blue Book, and Michael D. Swords, a retired professor of natural sciences at Western Michigan University. It's obvious that neither of the editors had any idea of who Ruppelt or Swords were, but they were going to delete them as sources because they just knew they must be fringe and unreliable because they had written about UFOs, or were quoted as saying something the editors didn't agree with. One editor even said they couldn't find any information on Swords, even though there is an entire Wiki article about him! Seriously, how hard could it have been to look that up? I'm no believer in UFOs myself - I think nearly all "unsolved" sightings are explainable as normal phenomena or military secret projects (especially UFO incidents from the 1940s-1980s Cold War period) - but it seems to me that editors should at least do some research into a UFO incident before editing willy-nilly. And, for the record, I'm well aware that many, many "believers" are guilty of the same, as I've seen numerous instances of citing absurd, highly-dubious "sources" into UFO articles as well. My point is that not all UFO sources are the same, yet both "believer" and "skeptical" Wiki editors make edits as if they were, based more on personal bias and ignorance of the topic rather than any Wiki guidelines. Just my two cents. 184.3.105.42 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge of these individuals would be of use to a number of UFO related articles, and if you could post it on the talk pages, that would be really helpful! I know there was quite a bit of this blanket rejection at the AFD discussion for UFO sightings in outer space on the basis that if a source covered UFO sightings, that was solid evidence that they were unreliable. Bali88 (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is typical of many UFO-related articles on Wikipedia in several different areas. It is poorly-written and poorly-organized, the citation formatting is poor, and it is sourced largely to a single writer. On the other hand, I have often been amused by UFO skeptics who want to delete such articles rather than fix the problems. They frequently claim that such articles are only cited to "fringe, unreliable" sources, but often have no clue that their claims of fringe sources are contradicted by prominent UFO debunkers (such as Philip Klass), who discuss in their books the very UFO incidents these editors wish to delete because only "fringe UFO believers" write about them. This is because they often haven't studied or read about the incidents the articles discuss, and thus simply dismiss them out of hand as "not notable" enough to be a Wikipedia article. In short, this article definitely needs some work and more sourcing (UFO skeptics such as Curtis Peebles and Donald Menzel have written about the Chiles-Whitted incident in their UFO books, for example), but I do think it's worth keeping as a Wiki article. And Jerome Clark is, I think, a reliable source, as is Edward J. Ruppelt, who discusses this incident in his book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. The article does need some work, but I'm not sure that simply deleting it is the way to go. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd happily withdraw the nomination if there was at least one editor who was willing to clean up this mess! I've had a look through some of the sources mentioned on this page and I'm not yet convinced that any would pass our notability guidelines (even the Skeptical sources), which tend to be blogs and small mentions. I get the impression that this just isn't a particulary important topic, even within the Fringe subject of ufology. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may regret saying this, but I will try to "fix" the article if that meets with your approval. I own copies of the books of Curtis Peebles, Donald Menzel, and Philip Klass - all prominent UFO debunkers - as well as some UFO books by what I consider to be more "reliable" sources, such as Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Jerome Clark. I am currently on vacation, so it will be next week before I can try some edits. I will contact you on your talk page so you can check my edits and see if they are OK. If not, please feel free to let me know and I'll do my best to fix them. I don't think the Chiles-Whitted case is a "major" UFO incident, but it did influence Project Sign and, according to Air Force officer and future Project Blue Book supervisor Edward J. Ruppelt, was considered at the time to be one of three "classic" cases that convinced Project Sign that UFOs were "real". My own take, after much reading, is that Chiles and Whitted probably saw a meteor, most likely a bolide. Again, it will be sometime next week before I will have the time to do this. I just hate to see an article deleted because no one wants to fix the problems. 184.3.105.42 (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing multiple independent reliable sources that need to be added to the article. They are found here including this book. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:10, 4 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. Clearly, the keeps have the numbers, and even an argument or two. With thanks to the nominator for their crisp prose and sturdy argument, and with thanks to Bearian for striking the note of tragedy. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Scruggs[edit]

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

Strikes me as a clear example of BLP1E. She got married to a person who possible passes the GNG, but that's what the coverage I've seen is about. In other words, not independently notable. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - news stories over three year's time period. She's in the category: famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bearian's got it spot on. — RockMFR 01:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet GNG.Jacona (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/comment Hmmm. In addition to the ongoing coverage, I see this extensive coverage in a recent book, albeit a certain type of God Is Good book. My feeling is she just about passes GNG, even though the omngoiing coverage over the last few years ultimately boils down to the one WP:SINGLEEVENT. Mabalu (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are no arguments in this discussion for keeping the article, which was borderline speediable as A7 and G11 to begin with. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Kémenes[edit]

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

It's really not clear to me what the claim of notability is here, or how any of the sources might demonstrate that this individual passes WP:BIO. What is clear is the conflict of interest: the article creator is the nearly single-purpose account SZERVÁC Attila; Kémenes, the article informs us, has worked with Attila Szervác. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I regularly edit articles on Hungarian artist guys and girls, e. g. Ágnes Simor, Bernadette Kémenes etc.

I know that there are issues between Romanian and Hungarian people, but I think Wikipedia English and Hungarian is not the platform of this debate. This is a right Article about a very importan and influental young Hungarian multiple award-winner artist with proper references and a self-portrait. Sources references to her awards, works.

(there are no conflits of interest, if You are bothered by the sentence references to common artistic work of the Artist and editor, just feel free to delete this sentence! :-)) Otherwise it's absolutely clear, that this article is proper & passes the criteria of a Notable & influental international Artist :) SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, your edits are not "regular"; you've made 22 edits to Wikipedia. The last fifteen have been about Kémenes. All but one of the edits you've made this year (and that one was in March) have been related to Kémenes.

It is immaterial to me whether Kémenes is Hungarian or Romanian or Khmer or Navajo. The salient question is whether she is notable, and for that we have no particular evidence.

Simply saying someone is notable does not magically make that person notable. Neither does receipt of an award automatically translate into notability. It can, of course, but it can also be the case that the award is irrelevant in encyclopedic terms. If you want this article kept, you have to demonstrate, convincingly, that Kémenes somehow meets at least one of the criteria set out at WP:ARTIST. You have not done so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Fails WP:GNG IMO; also some SPIP going on, I think. Quis separabit? 20:37, 6 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thergaon[edit]

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

The article should be deleted because it is too small and has no references to verify it. Additionally a quick web search shows that it might not be notable enough for a encylclopedia Abhinav0908 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been properly formatted and now has a citation to a reliable source. Thergoan is a former village, now a suburb of Pimpri-Chinchwad. In looking for sources one needs to distinguish between two former villages in Pune District with this name, this one Thergaon, Chinchwad, (postal code 411033) and Thergaon, Pune, (postal code 411019) which is now in Pune city. --Bejnar (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one source alone isn't enough. An article needs at minimum multiple reliable third-party sources providing in-depth coverage to pass notability criteria. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources. Legally recognized, populated places, places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage, or cultural heritage), and named natural features with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). See also WP:NPLACE.

Keep, satisfied notability for human settlements, several google book hits on the existence of a paper mill there. Note that there are plenty of different Thergaons in Maharashtra, including a settlement in Nasik. --Soman (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I think a disambiguation page is warranted for here. Z10987 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we should have a disambiguation page and the discussion must be closed keeping the page. Abhinav0908 (talk) 05:22, 10 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 Nomination withdrawn. Network has officially announced block's existence and plenty of neutral industry sources than the usual questionable kidvid blogs now exist. Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One Magnificent Morning[edit]

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

This article about a children's program block on The CW allegedly premiering in October is a case of WP:TOOSOON. First source is a clear WP:ADVERT merely mentioning the block has shows ready for purchase but without information about being in production or not, while source #2 has reliability problems in which the article is basically a lot of spec that comes down to 'the companies had no comment on these rumors', while #3 just rewrites the second story for another website while combining #1's program description boilerplates. Another barely more reliable source is available here, but again rehashes #2 with only the addition of a 'yes we're ending the block that precedes it, but no further comment'; no further sources have been found besides that (the rest are mirrors, search term clickbait and YouTube news reaction videos, with only one other newsorg reporting the story as a morning news time-filler sourced by #2). I have attempted to enforce WP:RELIABLE with the editors adding this to Vortexx and The CW and that we're not under a deadline to wait for more info to come out, but to no avail. Nate • (chatter) 18:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vortexx until further notice. While it may be a little early for an article, it has been confirmed by Anime News Network, a reputable source, that Vortexx is leaving for One Magnificent Morning.MadManAmeica (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep Multiple sources have now confirmed the launch of the block, including more reputable ones such as TVNewsCheck and Broadcasting & Cable. I have substantially revised the article to include these and other sources. TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the rationale for the AFD no longer applies. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:07, 6 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. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Michalitsianos[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician whose article makes no substantive claim of notability that would pass WP:NMUSIC, and cites no reliable source coverage of any sort — its only source is a cursory mention of her name in a property sales listing, which technically doesn't even contain any verifiable evidence that the person named in that list is actually the same person covered in our article. (Just for the record, the article did have more sources in it in the past, which have been removed for various reasons over the past six months or so, but none of them were any more reliable than the one that still exists — primary or blogspotty, every last one of 'em — so none of them are worth salvaging.) The article was recently overwritten with an even worse, blatantly advertorial version by an editor who also replaced the redirect at Sol Seppy with a duplicate post of the same article, but the reverted version still isn't a keepable article in its current form (nor, for the reasons I noted above, in any prior version I could revert to either.) As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and notability claim can be suitably beefed up, but she's not entitled to keep an unsourced BLP just because she exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Needs way better sourcing - The Bells of 1 2 suggests she might be notable. But as a BLP it needs sourcing, sourcing, sourcing. Unless sourced soon, delete - David Gerard (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources.
Delete. Needs better sourcing to establish GNG. Z10987 (talk) 01:40, 10 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 WP:BOLDly redirected to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer#MGM/UA, Turner, and Parretti, appropriate section for company's time of existence. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MGM/UA Communications Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable stub; at best can be merged with Pathé. Epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 3 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. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Celik[edit]

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

82.37.216.29 (talk) removed my "PROD" without giving a reason. The article should be deleted because Celik is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable. Jared Preston (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One of a million other players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 9 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 will delete this, for all the right reasons, and salt it (ditto). I'm tempted to cite the lead of the article here as an example of how not to write a biography. As for the deletion: there are no valid arguments presented here for keeping this. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel George Cefai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable; a poem hosting site and his personal site are not reliable sources JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to slowly build this article and link it to other relevant material on wikipedia, however I need time to do so. It would go much faster if I were not constantly accused of a number of infringements to policy which I then need to look up and address each time before moving on. I appreciate the help other users have given thus far but ask that my contributions are given time to fully comply with all policies. Suntrax south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntrax south (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) turn up no evidence that this person meets the notability criteria and no reason to overturn the previous AfD consensus. AllyD (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Non-notable crank philosopher. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not treat Dr Cefai in an unfair way. Go Dr Cefai’s site at Weebly.com read his scientific articles; go to Poem Hunter Com read his poems and see each day how much his poetry is read as well as the comments made by third parties on the site on Dr Cefai’s works; please go to Academia.edu and read scientific papers by Dr Cefai; then form your judgment whether the papers are land mark papers, whether the poetry of Dr Cefai is great and please check whether in recent times almost everyday Dr Cefai’s poetry is more widely read on PoemHunter.Com than poets as Leopardi, Holderlin, Ronsard, Virgil and others; and then conclude whether Dr Cefai is notable or not.

Also please compare Dr Cefai’s works with any other works by any Maltese intellectuals who are shown on Wikipedia without any difficulty. The only problem that I personally see with Dr Cefai is that he is so much an intellectual all rounder and head and shoulders above any other Maltese (if not Latin) intellectual that it will require a very long and deep study of his works, their import and significance and therefore I have to take a long time to conclude my article on Dr Cefai which I also feel I will have to adjust from time to time as Dr Cefai publishes more and more of his landmark works.

May I kindly ask you to consider well and retain permanently on the Wikipedia site the excerpts placed in scientific articles in Wikipedia all reporting faithfully what is written so far in the papers so far published by Dr Cefai. I feel also that the readers of Wikipedia should not be deprived from knowing about any of the ideas or works of Dr Cefai. This applies as well to any scientific proposal, Principle enunciation or other work put forth in Dr Cefai’s scientific papers. Please kindly let these references appear in the respective articles in Wikipedia; then it is up to anybody who is competent to correct, contradict, criticize or in any way adjust what is uploaded even against or near each respective upload and in writing. But I feel that Wikipedia readers should definitely be allowed to hear Dr Cefai’s position, then each one will judge for himself or herself. As already said all corrections, criticisms or any other adjustments are welcome. Suntrax south — Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Suntrax south (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. I don't see anything in all of the Google resources, except a pointer to his PoemHunter user page. I regret that Suntrax south interprets the trend here as being undair to Dr Cefai, but without reliable, disinterested sources, there is no way to write an objective article on him. Perhaps there are other sources we have missed? Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Suntrax_south you wrote:

Go Dr Cefai’s site at Weebly.com read his scientific articles ... and then conclude whether Dr Cefai is notable or not

but that is not how Wikipedia works. Here notability is determined by the coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Not editors' conclusions, not the writings of the subject themselves. You should read the policies concerned, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, as they describe the policies in detail. They are core policies of Wikipedia. All articles should be able to satisfy them, and need to do so if challenged, especially biographical articles on living people.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suntrax_south All ideas once expressed and once that they are not copied from any other person/s and have not been expressed by any other person before are equal in worth, equal in intellectual worth. Whether such ideas are those of an Einstein or of Dr Cefai does not matter. In Science and indeed in all civilization today the trend is that all new original ideas are equal in worth and that any ‘superiority’ of any one idea or set of ideas over the others is ‘myth’ and is relative. In the spirit of the above, Wikipedia should amend its policies and immediately so : ideas do not depend for their intrinsic intellectual worth on what others say including peers in peer-review processes but on what the ideas themselves say. Please dear Wikipedians wake up to the call of this important principle not just in Science or Literature or Philosophy but in all civilization. Otherwise with the ‘blocking’ ‘deleting’ of Dr Cefai you will unfortunately have blocked out from Wikipedia readers a part however small of Civilization. That is not fair to the Wikipedia readers themselves and recalls events a la Van Gogh in respect of Dr Cefai too. Suntrax_south 19:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No sources independent of the subject have been identified. I think the long-term persistence of the article creator in spamming Wikipedia with this material (after a past AfD and two G4 speedy deletions) makes page protection necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse the and salt. When I nominated it I didn't realise until the software made this the 2nd nomination that it had been AfDed before. Until the above comment I didn't bother checking the log to see the other times it's been deleted. Salting will stop this time wasting once and for all (unless someone comes up with proper sources for this article, but that seems extremely unlikely after several years to do so).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that the original article had been done without a thorough knowledge or enough experience of Wikipedia's purpose and, most importantly, regulations. The decision to delete it was perfectly right, and that is precisely what I have done. Not by eliminating the page entirely but by modifying the article from top to bottom. For all its worth, I hope that, in its present form, the article is now acceptable. Of course, I suggest that it is removed from the earmarked list of articles for deletion as now I see this resolution to be unnecessary.

If I may add a further comment, I submit that a page on Emmanuel George Cefai is worth keeping on Wikipedia. I am quite conscious of Wikipedia's extensive rules regarding Notability. Nevertheless, since Cefai is already somewhat published and has external references to Wikipedia itself, I think that there is some significance in having an article on the subject. --Katafore (talk) 17:43, 6 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. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanford Webb[edit]

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

Political figure with no particularly strong claim of notability that would pass WP:POLITICIAN — the only real claim of notability here is his candidacies, never successful, for the municipal council in a suburban town whose incumbent municipal politicians wouldn't even necessarily be notable enough to be on here. The article further fails to demonstrate that he actually warrants permanent coverage in an encyclopedia with an international audience — all it does is state that he ran for city council a bunch of times, without providing the first hint of a reason why anybody should care that he ran for city council a bunch of times. Wikipedia does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on politicians at the municipal level of government, nor on unsuccessful candidates for election to any level of government, if a solid and substantive claim of notability supported by a solid range of sources isn't present. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable perpetual candidate.68.232.186.227 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be of purely local interest. It would be nice to know what the book Wings of Power took two pages to say about him. He must be about 89 by now. --Bejnar (talk) 00:46, 4 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. I am sympathetic to the nominator, but AfD is not for cleanup; linked sources indicate notability. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hartwell Fiske[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, evidently posted by the subject himself, which is sourced exclusively to primary sources that do not properly demonstrate that he has sufficient notability to belong in an encyclopedia. There is a potentially valid notability claim here — namely the authorship of several published books — but real, valid sourcing isn't there to back it up properly. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if good sources can be added, but he's not entitled to keep this. Delete if it's still in its current state by close. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added 3 reviews of his Dictionary of Unendurable English, and there's more coverage[1][2][3][4]. There's also a bit of coverage about his other books[5][6] and he's occasionally cited as an expert[7] but I'm not sure I'd agree with that judgment. So meets WP:AUTHOR for one book. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 4 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. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Zhou[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:ENT, coverage is mostly local or secondary to her appearance on dancing with the stars, neither of which seems to satisfy WP:GNG Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 17:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2014

(UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Zeus. Dance is outside of my subject area expertise, but subject seems like an emerging, not established artists. Does having an apprentice contract with a ballet count as determining notability? Seem like it wouldn't to me.--Theredproject (talk) 16:32, 5 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. As you wish. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naked vengeance[edit]

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

Fails WP:MOVIE, almost no coverage. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 16:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: Added sources definitely seem to meet WP:RS, so I will withdraw my delete vote. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 22:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some coverage does exist, and the film is written up in all sorts of exploitation film blogs, but what I've found so far in reliable sources is all quite brief; I added three sources, all of them very short. The director, Cirio Santiago, was a notable figure in the Phillipines film industry and in the world of exploitation films, which is not to say that every one of his many films (82 directing credits, according to IMDb) is separately notable. According to a directory listing here, this film was reviewed in the June 11, 1986 Variety but I haven't found that review. Anyway, this deserves at least some further looks for sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add comment: I turned up two positive reviews. (1) I'm not entirely sure about the RS status of the first, Critical Condition magazine, which described its focus as "obscure & bizarre films on video and DVD", but it does seem to have been a published journal at one time; it calls this Santiago's "crowning achievement." (2) HBO's Guide to Movies on Videocassette and Cable TV doesn't seem to be readable online, but a 1991 Philadelphia Inquirer article, commenting on that book's unusual methodology for rating films by viewer polling, notes that Naked Vengeance "sounds trashy, but it has four stars". [8] Based on these, and despite my initial doubts, ~~I'm starting to lean keep here~~. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC) (Switching to snow keep, see below. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Non-US releases:

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

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

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

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

Keep per non-English coverage. Added to what we have in English, I feel the non-English sources show a meeting of WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Fantastic movie available on YouTube, jump to 36 minutes for the... Climactic bit. It should be noted that the film is mentioned in several works critiquing or discussing rape-revenge-genre movies. Additionally, many reviews of this movie can be found through Google News Archive or Google Books. There is coverage, enough to warrant a keep. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. With the impressive additional sourcing found by MichaelQSchmidt and Bonkers The Clown, notability is clear-cut, and given the nominator's withdrawal I'm dropping the implied uncertainty of my "lean to keep" above. I suggest that we go ahead and close this per WP:SNOW. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:25, 4 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. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Lorigo[edit]

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

Article about a political figure whose only substantive claim of notability is being the chairman of a local chapter of a political party, which cites not one shred of reliable source coverage to demonstrate why he should have an article in an encyclopedia (its only source is the local chapter's own website, a primary source that cannot confer notability.) This is not a claim that passes WP:POLITICIAN, needless to say. I would in fact have speedied this, except that there's already a disputed prod in the edit history. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Straight failure of GNG, with no applicable Special Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable politician with no significant coverage.68.232.186.227 (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here, no reliable references.Jacona (talk) 01:14, 10 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no other arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 17:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Scanlan[edit]

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

This page has not had any sources added in over a year, the only source remains IMDb. Bensci54 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a few articles: The Times (subscription), The Glasgow Herald, and The Evening Times. Also, there are a few reviews of plays in The Scotsman. He doesn't seem super high profile, but he's gotten a bit of coverage, and, perhaps most importantly, there's enough criticism to satisfy WP:NACTOR. The article was in pretty bad shape, but I'm sure someone will be around soon to lecture you about how AfD is not for cleanup. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Issue has been fixed; I withdraw my AfD. Bensci54 (talk) 21:55, 3 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. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prithvi Raj S Amin[edit]

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

Vanity page; once the things like the Google+ account were removed there is no notability beyond Youflik. Origamite^{$·_·$(/·_·)/} 16:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page is of the CEO of youflik. Seems relevant. CEO of youflik is notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prithviamin (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your username, it's you; also, notability is not transferable. Origamite^{$·_·$(/·_·)/} 16:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the author of the page can and should vote on the AFD as well as present any arguments that you believe are relevant. If there are additional sources or additional pieces of information that have yet to be considered, definitely bring them to the table. Bali88 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the author; I have a problem with the blatant WP:COI. Origamite^{$·_·$(/·_·)/} 20:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should've specified, I was speaking to Raj, not you. Some new editors aren't aware that they can vote in these things. Bali88 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Youflik. The young age of the creator is notable, however, I'm not sure that youflik is big enough yet for the CEO to be notable. For the record, most CEO's in the world don't meet notability standards on wikipedia, so it's nothing personal. Bali88 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Youflik (social networking site) or delete. However, I have a feeling that Youflik will probably be coming up for deletion next. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd like to see how this goes before doing anything else. You can, however. Origamite^{$·_·$(/·_·)/} 17:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I guess it's probably best to just delete, especially if we're talking about nominating that article for deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:N. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 17:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable; he may very well become notable in future but not just yet. Don't redirect, since I believe the website fails to meet WP:WEB. --bonadea contributions talk 17:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable autobio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youflik (social networking site) --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clearly an article made for self-promotion of a non-notable individual. Cowlibob (talk) 10:17, 7 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 German music#Ostrock. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrock[edit]

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

This article has no citations, has had little change in the over 8 years it has been an article, and is basically nothing more than a list of bands, which goes against WP:NOTDIR Johnny338 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to German music#Ostrock. While that article also has poor sourcing, it gives more information than the Ostrock article itself does. I saw a few sources on a quick Google search, but most were in German, which I don't read; this does lead me to believe RS exist for this genre. PaintedCarpet (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per PaintedCarpet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ostrock is sufficiently notable to have some coverage but this article isn't helping. Longwayround (talk) 18:50, 7 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. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Geiger[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - the only citation that is independent of the article's subject (i.e. not his own company or one of his clients) is a passing mention on a gossip website as a guest at a wedding. Surely he has a decent client list as a tour manager, but namedropping is not a substitute for significant coverage in independent reliable sources. HaeB (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:BASIC. Sources hugely fail WP:RS. I have been unable to find anything that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Hagenaars[edit]

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

Article was PRODded with reason: "No independent sources. Works published only by very small publishers. Only confirmed award is only a very minor one ("Sakko Prijs" seems to be limited to one small Dutch town, Bergen op Zoom) No indication of notability (tagged since 2010)." PROD was removed by anonymous IP without any reason stated. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator: delete. No coverage of this person, collections not published by notable publishers, vanity article. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons above. I google-searched five SERP pages with more inclusive "web" filter (not more exclusive "news" filter) and did not find anything that indicated notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet our notability standards. Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Zappa 24 Mati 21:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Brickyard 400[edit]

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

This article has been created eight weeks before the event. We usually create race articles a week or two before, not eight. Daytona 500 15:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I've had a change of heart and I'm withdrawing my nomination and closing this discussion as Speedy Keep #1. It's pointless to delete this article when the race is a mere eight weeks away.--Daytona 500 14:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- When I got a message saying this was here, I thought maybe I had done something wrong. Now I see that it's just because I laid the foundation for the article a few weeks in advance? I've seen other auto racing articles created a few months in advance, and no one complained about those. I presented it the way that it normally is presented. The fact that it's a few weeks in advance shouldn't matter, because, that would also suggest that all those other auto racing articles that were made months in advance should have been deleted as well, but they weren't; they were all made with the minimum basic script laid out, ready for them when the time came. And besides, it's not just auto racing scripts that are laid out a few months in advance, I've seen tennis Majors had their article created a whole year in advance, and it stayed there without being deleted. The fact that it's a few weeks in advance is only delaying the inevitable. I could make it again in a few weeks with the exact same information that is in it now, but that would be silly seeing as how I've now already made one. Making another one, with the exact same information, in a few weeks' time from now, would just be extra time and effort put in when it's not necessary, being that the basic starting script for the article would be unchanged from the way it is now. This is why so many tennis Major articles are started nearly a year in advance, it's because the basic starting script in them remains unchanged. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this year's Indianapolis 500 page was made on May 28th, 2013. And it stayed! Johnsmith2116 (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Race articles are never created this early. As the nom said, usually about two weeks before. United States Man (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- First of all, yes they ARE done often several weeks, or in some cases, MONTHS, in advance across the whole auto racing spectrum, we're not just talking nascar. And second, the above user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man) is using this as a sadistic opportunity to get back at me because of on ongoing grudge against me, so, with that being the case, their opinion here is void because it's just meant out of malice. In fact, truth be known, probably the only reason they knew about this is because they are keeping an eye on my profile to see that I'm doing. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems there is consensus that the topic is notable. There is disagreement about when the article is best put into mainspace. Seems like there oughta be a standard...and the obvious standard is one year! in advance, not 1 week or 2 weeks or 8 weeks...if anyone wants to create an article about the 2015 Wimbledon tennis tournament, frankly i think 1 year is cool. Any news coverage is likely to be about the next one, not the one after next, so up to the 1 year before standard there is accumulating coverage. This wonderful reasoning by me (You're welcome!) oughta be enshrined in some standard/guideline/policy somewhere. :) Seriously, though, there is no reason to distinguish between 1 vs. 2 vs. 8 weeks, and the "next" one is determined 1 year in advance. --do ncr am 22:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That solution won't work for most of the races, because the NASCAR schedule isn't released until September usually. I really so no reason for an article to sit empty for a whole year. All that would be there is "so-and-so race is upcoming" and brief background info about the track. Hardly any races get coverage until one to two weeks before. United States Man (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's comical, although predictable, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/United_States_Man), that you would come on here pretending that you care about this topic when you know very well that you're just using it as a means to show your vindictiveness for retaliation over a totally different issue altogether. Your mission on the other thing failed, so you try to use this. Some people will stoop to anything. Seeing as how this is totally out of your own bias to further your own personal agenda, you don't get a vote on this. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, you're entitled to your opinion but that's a pretty silly claim to make. According to United States Man's own userpage ( <-- that link ) he is interested in three topics - tornadoes, roads and NASCAR and has created articles about each of those things. He's a member of WikiProject NASCAR (he's listed on the front page) and may well have received notification of this discussion as soon as it was posted (it is first on the list of the project's article notifications). Now he and I disagree on what should happen to this article in this instance but even those who disagree have managed to keep this discussion fairly civil. You are the exception and I'd imagine you're heading toward a block for personal attacks if you continue. Take a step back and calm down. You certainly don't get to unilaterally declare someone's opinion invalidated because you have a conspiracy theory. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, but if you knew more about the last 2 months' worth of that user's antics, you'd fully understand the full scope of that user's vindictive nature. This isn't the first or 2nd time, it's the 3rd time at the very least. It's been months of this non-sense. And even if that user was invited here, that doesn't take away from the fact that they are using this as the opportunity to get back at me, and it isn't the first time.

So is my equally-weighted opinion an attempt to get back at him for some unknown slight? Or is yours an attempt to get back at the nominator? Not likely. He's allowed an opinion here, just like everyone else (regardless of his motivations). He's also not the only member of WikiProject NASCAR with that opinion - did he turn them all against you? Not likely. Just focus on content rather than theorising about the possible motivations of others. Doing so is a waste of time. Doing so publicly will just get you blocked. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stalwart111, Thanks again for your comments. But, me pointing out that that user has been vindictively targeting me is not a personal attack, it's a matter of fact. Plus, a few hours ago, they went on the Dispute board and deleted a certain portion of someone else's edit, which was then put back by another user. That's the nature of the way that user does things, and it's ridiculous. I realize you've just come in. This thing with that user has gone one for quite some time, so, for you to see a few words here and judge going only by that, that's not right. .. As far as the race is concerned, there are race articles that are made much more than a few weeks in advance as well as for tennis too. In fact, the Indianapolis 500 for this year was made a whole year in advance.

It is most certainly considered a personal attack if it is not backed up with evidence. In this case, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite of what you have claimed. I'm just providing fair and friendly warning - I'm not an admin, I can't block you anyway. As for other races, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Others are making strong policy-based arguments in favour of keeping the article and there's nothing more you need to do. Probably best to find something else to edit for a couple of days while this runs its course. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is there, in the contribution history. That user had even been gently scolded by the Dispute board last month. But thanks again for your input. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect — Per Wikipedia:Notability...The three sources currently referenced are from last year. There's never any sources available for these races until a week or two before. And Josh, the reason that some race articles are created months in advance is because races like the Daytona 500, the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the Indianapolis 500 are three of the biggest races in all of motor sports so there's always info. The Coca-Cola 600, one of NASCAR's marquee events, didn't have anything beyond when the race was scheduled.--Daytona 500 22:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A little early, perhaps, but this is the 21st running of a major NASCAR race and there is no doubt that it will either be held or sensationally cancelled, thus encyclopedic either way. The information presented so far would be helpful to anyone searching the title. WP is better off with the material in mainspace than it would be from userfication and return. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTBURO: this is a case where the page will be recreated in just over a month. Yes, it was created WP:TOOSOON and somebody deserves a trout for that, but at this point deleting it would be slightly silly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doncram, Carrite and Bushranger. I understand that certain WikiProjects have certain ways of doing things and non-participants usually respect those ways provided they are compliant with policy. But that doesn't mean those "ways" become policy and it doesn't mean that a new user's enthusiasm should be used as a reason for deletion. I agree a year might be a bit early but I watch NASCAR occasionally and they regularly provide coverage (during broadcasts) of races weeks in advance where those races might impact on standings. 1-2 weeks might be practical but 8 weeks is not so far outside the confines of reasonableness that deletion is justified. Perhaps spend some time welcoming the newcomer (who is obviously keen on this topic area) and induct him into your "ways" so that future instances are avoided. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes it's a bit too early, but the event's notable anyway and will end up getting an article sooner or later. Might as well just let it stay. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I learned from the above discussion that articles on races in America are usually created two days before the event. However, in some racing series, particularly Formula One, an article for the event is created as early as a whole year before it happens. Why the difference? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not terribly concerned with the early creation in this situation. This may be an issue with some event or the release of an album that we have no idea if it will be notable, but a few weeks too early? Somehow I can't get too worked up about this. Edit: this is a keep vote.

Having said that, do they really have a separate article about each separate year? It just seems like overkill. Bali88 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROUTINE event, covered in a routine way, no different to any MLB, NFL or Soccer match happening on the same day, it will be in the sports news but WP:NOTNEWS applies here. LGA _talk^edits 03:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same reaction...it seems like overkill to document every single year, but apparently that's what they do. It seems though, that the discussion is whether it should be deleted because apparently he put up the page 6 weeks early instead of 2 weeks early. They're discussing whether the page should be deleted so it can be recreated again in 4 weeks. It seems that everyone is cool with a yearly brickyard 400 article. It may be useful to put in a second vote that if the page is kept, if it should be taken down now because it was a few weeks early in its creation. That seems to be the major bone of contention. Bali88 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They may do that, but WP policy is clear that we no not cover news events and local projects can't override site wide policy. LGA _talk^edits 08:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Races are not the same as stick-and-ball sporting events. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep I know I'm the one who started this deletion discussion but I'm changing my vote to keep since the race is a mere seven weeks away now. Also, the consensus seems pretty solid for keep.--Daytona 500 02:21, 6 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. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trip rock[edit]

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

No reliable sources given (in fact no sources at all). No evidence of notability. SabreBD (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides lacking sources, the article does not make a clear declaration about the meaning of the two word expression.Borock (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Discogs and Last FM list bands as trip-rock. Anarchangel (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not reliable sources. You need to find a reliable source that uses the term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I contradict your assertion. Those are reliable sources. You may prefer AllFail, but I find it to be all flash and no substance; a source that is routinely incomplete and makes mistakes under cover of slick graphics for quick profits, while other sites do thorough and reliable work for a steady living. Wikipedians often confuse AllFail's incompleteness with exclusivity, and exclusivity with discretion. It is purely incompetence. You may also restore the sources if you wish. Anarchangel (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Last.FM is blatantly not a reliable source. Its content is almost entirely user-submitted. — Gwalla | Talk 18:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is Discogs. Content is user edited and then voted on. Reliable sources include peer edited books and articles and not user generated websites. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Discogs and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 57#last fm for previous discussions.--SabreBD (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use is restricted to user-generated, unreliable sources. Does not seem to be an accepted genre in reliable sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here, no reliable references.Jacona (talk) 01:15, 10 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. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goossen family[edit]

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

The article is primarily about one member of the family whose notability is far from established. Non-notable promoter. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an unusual situation. I looked up Joe Goossen...there are a lot of hits. This link shows quite a few articles in the LA Times. Dan has just as many. However, I don't really see any articles detailing the Goossens as a family. Now, I'm not any sort of boxing expert, so I can't say how notable these guys are individually, but it just seems like an odd choice to lump them together as well as it seems like it could constitute original research. Typically the articles we have about famous families have sources that cover their notability as a group. It seems like the best we can do here is to detail their notability of individuals. Thoughts? Bali88 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right it is unusual - perhaps we could create individual people articles and see if they meet notability. I don't believe they would but there would be no harm demerging this article.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dan and Joe have a little notability, but an article on "the family" is just weird. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough to show that any of the family members are individually notable, much less claiming the entire family is. Papaursa (talk) 18:36, 4 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. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary film that seems to be unreleased and extremely limited in coverage, WP:TOOSOON BOVINEBOY2008 13:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was actually moved to the draftspace back in October per this AfD discussion. I thought this sounded familiar. So far it looks like it has most of the same issues as it did last time, in that it hadn't yet released and that nobody has really covered it at all so far. I'll do a little more digging, but offhand I think that re-creating the article is a little premature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now something I just noticed about this particular article: this was created days after the close of the previous AfD. It was also created under a new name, which I'll be perfectly honest: this comes across as an attempt to defy the previous AfD decision by deliberately trying to keep it from getting detected. There was absolutely no reason for this to be re-added to the mainspace at all, let alone under a different title. The decision made for the movie when it was titled "Disconnect" is the same decision for the film under its different title. A different title doesn't mean that the decision made by the prior admin is no longer valid. Here's what I suggest: we merge the histories of the two articles and leave it in the draftspace for now. I would like to deeply caution User:Tjmayerinsf about re-creating this article before it's actually received coverage. You might have meant well, but at some point acting like this makes it very hard to assume good faith on your behalf because this really does come across as a deliberate attempt to subvert the decision at the previous AfD because you want the article to be in the mainspace. I actually kind of see where you've done this on more than one occasion, as is the case with the article Tulip Time: The Rise and Fall of the Trio Lescano, where the article was deleted three times and each time you re-added the page within a few days of its deletion. Please understand, this is actually seen as incredibly disruptive because I don't see where you've ever addressed the issues brought up by the deletions for Tulip Time. This kind of makes me question your editing ethics. I understand that you're frustrated at having to prove WP:NFILM, but re-creating articles without addressing the issues posed is NOT the way to go about this. I'm sorry, but I think that this is something that should probably be brought up at WP:ANI or another applicable forum because we've blocked people for doing stuff like this in the past and you've been editing long enough to where you should be aware of rules for notability, coverage, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author of the article is here under some duress. I noticed that this had been redirected to an implausible target and undid the redirect, since it creates a sort of unilateral "pocket deletion" without any process. I suggested that if there were notability concerns, that they should be dealt with through the usual channels (notability tag, prod, AfD). An AfD swiftly followed. I didn't know about the previous deletion history of the article, and I make no claims about whether the article should be kept or scrapped. But I'll note that the original author didn't contest the redirection (or at least, didn't much protest it), and is only defending it now because I made a stink about it. Chubbles (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's short of notability. Chubbles, why did you restore the article with an admonition to follow "the usual channels", after the usual channels had decided to delete the article? And linking to copyvio isn't a good idea either. Here's the Indiegogo page, it should give a hint of what we're dealing with. bobrayner (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about the previous deletion history of the article. However, redirecting to an unrelated title is not the typical solution even for a repost; G4 is. If the community decides G4 is warranted here, then so be it; I don't have a dog in that fight, but it is the community's decision to make. The redirection was unilateral. Chubbles (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete may (or may not) be notable once released, but certainly doesn't appear to be so now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. Yes, per San Francisco Guardian an early version screened July 28, 2012. But Kunze keeps changing the name, and the thing has not had any wider release. Allow it back only when we have reliable sources speaking about it in some detail. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the Americas with alternative names[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Big old WP:NOTIINFO violation. Most of the list is just transliterations of the city's name into a non-Latin script which has then been romanicized (like all the Chinese and Japanese names). Names like "Beverwyck" or "Kinłání" might be worth discussing, but "Nyū Yōku" or "Sānfānshì" are not. All but one entry on the list is not referenced, so there's that too. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expected it to be about items like "Gotham", "The Big Easy", "Second City", etc. Instead it is a major violation of "not a dictionary," as well as "not a directory." Of course place names are different in different languages, but that's not a concern of WP or any encyclopedia. Borock (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - At the very least it needs a name change. I could see this list being useful to people at times, but how would they ever find it? I would expect this article to be about alternate names in English. The article needs to be called "names of cities in other languages" or something. Plus, it's unsourced. Bali88 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could see giving other language names for a (major) city in its own article, but what's the point of a list? Borock (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, some people have weird interests! A list of the various monickers of cities like you suggested would actually be an interesting article. I wouldn't fight super hard to keep this one. Bali88 (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official names or names commonly used in English, whether still in use or not, may be suitable for a list but others are not. Most of these would be deleted as redirects. Peter James (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was expected the same thing as Borock. In fact, there are already various lists presented in City nicknames. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but... This is effectively a list of exonyms - such lists act as navigational aids ()and a useful supplement to Wikipedia's gazetteer function), and past AfDs on them have usually ended with the list being kept. However, there are definitely two problems with the article which need to be corrected. Firstly, as is clear from previous points in this discussion, the current article does not make it clear what the subject of the article is, and therefore should be changed - possibly to Names of cities in the Americas in different languages, in line with the similar articles Names of European cities in different languages and Names of Asian cities in different languages. Secondly, the listed names should be verifiable as being used, or having been used in the past, by reliable sources in the language concerned - a reputable atlas would generally be OK for this. And, in general, one would only expect a name to be listed either if it is different from the common English name or (where it is the same) if a reader might reasonably expect it to be different. But bringing the article into compliance with these issues is an editing, not a deletion, problem. PWilkinson (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those lists of exonyms may be useful in Europe and Asia where there's been a decent number of border changes that predicate having lists of the names (Gdansk and Danzig for example) but there does not seem to be a utility for the cities in the Americas which are rarely ever referred to by alternate names within the Americas other than stuff like "Nueva York" and maybe the split between Brazilian Portuguese and Spanish with Iguaçu/Iguazu.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Names of cities in other languages is hardly remarkable. United States Man (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their deletion nomination and there are no outstanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W Boyes & Co[edit]

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

Unreferenced advert - "offer reasonable prices". Laun chba ller 11:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A firm with 130 year history; one promotional phrase is not grounds for deletion. Most recent coverage is in regional press from across the north of England (Yorks, Notts, Derbyshire, etc) and trade press: there's stuff about company history[9][10] as well as reports on store openings and sales figures[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Owing to company history, there is likely to be more coverage from pre-internet days. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A chain of 49 department stores is certainly notable. As to being an advert, please! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was an advert when I AfDd it. Withdrawn.--Laun chba ller 14:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wasn't an advert then either. A little promotional maybe, but you could have deleted that yourself. Would have taken less time than AfDing! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 3 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. It would be easy to hide behind vote counting here, but I will note in addition that Hobit's argument regarding local sources appeared to me to be better based on the text of GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sumter Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted very recently after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall. There was subsequently a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 19, which did not lead to a consensus to overturn. The page has now been re-created with enough references that a G4 would not be applicable (and has been tried and declined). The question is, are the new sources enough to overcome the concerns that led to deletion in the past? —S Marshall T/C 11:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly meets the GNG. I'm unaware of a SNG or policy which indicates this should be deleted. So keep. Hobit (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't feel the article might be a WP:NOT violation? Indiscriminate information, perhaps?—S Marshall T/C 12:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Na. We have articles on old school houses where all we know is that it is in a list of historical buildings. This seems much less indiscriminate and more useful than at least 50% of our articles. Malls were a central part of many towns--occasionally as important as a downtown. And they had huge impacts on cities--particularly downtowns as companies fled. In any case, what one person views as indiscriminate, another might see as needed--it's why that policy has a list of things where people have agreed on what is indiscriminate. This certainly isn't on the list. Hobit (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has multiple sources including non-local sources from the Herald-Journal in Spatanburg, SC and The State in Columbia, SC. Meets GNG and original concerns addressed. Me5000 (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (again), no evidence the mall is any more notable than it was during the AFD, or the very recent DRV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But you agree it meets the GNG? I'm trying to get my head around the justification for deletion here. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Looking at the deletion review, I get the impression that the deleted article was shorter, but I would have probably supported keeping the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall after sources were mentioned there. Consensus can change, and when it depends on which editors notice the AFD (usually very few) maybe it isn't consensus of the community at all. Peter James (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can anyone point me to coverage that is not: a) non-substantial; b) routine; or c) local coverage? Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your objection to local? Hobit (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regional mall in a small city is notable enough for an article. Article also has multiple newspaper sources, including non-local newspapers. Dough 48 72 00:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources are reliable, independent and third party. Enough sources to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep As I said at WT:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Malls, "The Sumter Mall article has new sourcing... At the DRV and AfD there was consensus that Sumter Mall met WP:GNG. The argument that the sources were only local did not stand. The argument that the sources were not independent was shown to not be consistent with the essay WP:INDY." About the WP:NOT argument, I stated, "WP:NOT is a policy and supersedes the WP:N guideline. But I don't see that the definitions [in allbusiness.com and icsc.org] that include the word "regional" open us up to indiscriminate coverage. We know from icsc.org that as of Jan 2014, the U.S. has 680 super-regional malls, and 831 regional malls. Malls also factor into the gazetteer as venues and regional landmarks." Note that the icsc.org reference, [19], lists 111,502 as the "center count" in the U.S. While statistical arguments have exceptions; as previously stated at the AfD or DRV, the city government considers this to be the most important shopping feature, and The Item in a headline describes the mall as the "Area's shopping cornerstone". I originally believed that this mall had a size of over 400,000 sq ft, but I now suspect that this is the enclosed area; whereas the GLA is between 300,000 and 400,000 sq ft. The mall still fits the allbusiness.com definition of a regional shopping center. This weakens the argument that the mall fits as a "regional mall" as per icsc.org; however, on other parameters such as acreage, the mall is still in the regional mall type, and in the "Trade area size", the 5-25 miles range marks it as a super-regional mall. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is absurd. A week after the DRV ended, this gets recreated. It's essentially the same article, with essentially the same set of references, all in a local paper. So it fails WP:GNG for exactly the same reasons it failed the first time. Recreating it was borderline disruptive. The statement, At the DRV and AfD there was consensus that Sumter Mall met WP:GNG is equally absurd. The AfD closing stated, The policy arguments clearly show that this is not independantly notable. How do you turn that into there was consensus that Sumter Mall met WP:GNG?

There really are only two important questions here. First, "Do we judge notability of shopping malls based on their square footage?". Second, "Are articles in local newspapers sufficient to establish notability without any more widespread coverage?" We obviously disagree on those points, and that's fair. But, let's keep the argument rational. Summarizing prior discussions as establishing consensus which is diametrically opposed to the closing statements is not rational.

Above, Hobit asks a very reasonable question, What is your objection to local?. The problem with local is that the closer you are to an event, the greater its significance is, to you. I am concerned when my next door neighbor doesn't cut his lawn often enough and it starts to look unkempt. I am concerned when somebody a mile away wants to put up a tall building which will block my view. I am concerned when somebody in the next town wants to build a factory complex which will dump toxic waste into my water supply. I am concerned when somebody in the next state wants to build a nuclear power plant, and I am concerned when a nuclear power plant anywhere in the world has an accident. If only local newspapers are reporting on an event, that's evidence that it's only of interest to the local population. If it were of interest to a wider audience, media from further away would be reporting on it as well. So, it's not so much that I object to local, it's that I object to local in the absence of additional non-local coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- That you wish to discount the local sources is fine, but this plainly meets the GNG--I wasn't aware anyone was disagreeing with this. There are multiple articles in reliable independent sources. The GNG says nothing about local. Using WP:IAR here to say that local sources should be discounted is very much a reasonable Wikipedia argument. But I'd like to hear what part of the GNG this doesn't meet.

Seperately, if its important to a fair number of people, I'd argue we should have an article on it (if we can support it with sources and it's not all OR). I don't care about porn stars, historical school houses or 98% of our TV coverage (I don't watch TV). But I recognize that others do and we should still cover it. More people likely care about this mall than 99% of the entries on the registry of historical places. So does that (limited...) national coverage mean more than significant local coverage? I just don't see how. There is nothing wrong with covering local things as long as we have the sources to cover them. Or put another way--"how does deleting his help the encyclopedia?" Keeping it clearly helps--some people will read it and find it useful. But I don't see the case that deletion helps. I'm assuming you think it does, so I'd like to hear your reasoning. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - I disagree that this meets GNG. Now you're aware of that :-) I disagree because WP:GNG cites WP:IS, which, under Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Indiscriminate_sources, says, A newspaper in a small town might write about the opening and closing of every single business in the town, or the everyday activities of local citizens. Indiscriminate sources are poor indicators of notability and should be considered skeptically when determining due weight. Alll of this was gone over in great detail in the DRV which closed a week before this article was recreated. We've got the same people back here, making the same arguments, about the same article, which cites the same sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are citing an essay to justify this not meeting our primary notability guideline when it meets the entirety of the actual guideline as written? I understand your argument, but I hope you understand why I think that's a huge stretch. If you think there is consensus that local sources shouldn't count toward the GNG, start an RfC. But I don't believe there is anything near consensus on that point, yet you are arguing we are all clearly in the wrong here. OK, ignoring that, could you explain why deleting this is good for the encyclopedia? I've not seen anyone address that, and if it's not, we really shouldn't be doing it. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have six references from non-Sumter sources. These are from three different newspapers and one TV station. Two of these first appeared in the new article, one of which is from Spartanburg, SC. These are in addition to the multiple sources already listed at the first AfD. For additional reference, The Item has hundreds of hits in a topic search for Sumter Mall, [20]. These seem to be from within the last ten years. Additional hits for "Jessamine Mall" are available from Google newspaper archive, [21]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your math. I see eleven references. Eight of them are from The Item. Eleven minus eight is three. How do you get six? But anyway, let's look at thoese three:

The first is a link to the mall's own website.
The next is an article from the Herald-Journal. The is about some other mall being built in another town. In the sixth paragraph, it finally gets to something about this mall, Wilson Associates malls in South Carolina are Jasmin Mall in Sumpter and Crosscreek Mall in Greenwood. That's it. That's all it says about this mall.
The third one simply says, "Local & State". The State. August 10, 2011. No URL, not even an article title, so I can't do anything with it.
The article also has a "Further Reading" link. I read that. It's a routine article about how Christmas shopping season starts right after Thanksgiving. Here's what it has to say about Sumter Mall: In Sumter, a city minus a few thousands shoppers because of troop deployments from Shaw Air Force Base to Saudi Arabia, the city's only mall was packed with shoppers. That's it. They don't even mention the name of the mall.

-- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I need to define the term "non-Sumter sources", but if it helps I can do that. By "non-Sumter sources" I exclude the sources from The Item, which is published in Sumter; and sumtersc.gov. I include newspapers and TV stations from Charleston, Spartanburg, and Columbia. Do you want me to list the six non-Sumter sources? Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Four of these non-Sumter sources are from the DRV. I found three in the article, whereas I initially only noticed two, so I am listing seven rather than six non-Sumter sources. Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal A. Baker, State Business Writer (February 8, 1988), "Malls didn't succeed for 2 downtowns", The State, Columbia, SC, retrieved 2014-05-25, But then Jessamine Mall, a regional shopping center, opened and an exodus began from Main Street to the suburban mall... ((citation)): |author= has generic name (help)
"Parents Flock to Sumter Mall For Free School Supplies", WLTX, Columbia, SC
"Sumter Mall hosting Junie B. Jones luau", The State, Columbia, SC, June 22, 2006
Caroline Fossi of The Post and Courier Staff (November 14, 2004), "Malls vs. teens: Stricter rules govern hangout spots", The Post and Courier, Charleston, SC, retrieved 2014-05-26, Sumter Mall's policy, 'Family First,' was started this year and requires people 16 and younger to be accompanied by an adult 21 or older after 6 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays.
"Local & State". The State. August 10, 2011.
Leonard, Michael (June 2, 1981). "60-Store Enclosed Shopping Mall Planned". Herald-Journal. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
Jim Davenport (24 November 1990). "Shoppers Fill Stores Across South Carolina". Herald-Journal. Spartanburg, SC. Retrieved 28 May 2014. The mall opened at 8 a.m. and was packed an hour later, Kathy Burnam, manager of Jessamine Mall, said.

Let's see...

Malls didn't succeed for 2 downtowns. I can't find this one. I went to http://www.thestate.com/ and tried entering both the title and the quote into the search box. I come up with: 0 RESULTS FOR "MALLS DIDN'T SUCCEED FOR 2 DOWNTOWNS". Do you have a URL that points to the article itself?
Parents Flock to Sumter Mall For Free School Supplies. This doesn't strike me as being about the mall. It's about an event which took place at the mall. It could have just as easily take place at any other mall.
Sumter Mall hosting Junie B. Jones luau. Again, you didn't give a URL. You gave a title, but when I go to http://www.thestate.com/ and enter that title into a search box, I get, 0 RESULTS FOR "SUMTER MALL HOSTING JUNIE B. JONES LUAU". I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, I'm just trying to evaluate the sources. If I can't find the sources, I can't evaluate them.
Malls vs. teens: Stricter rules govern hangout spots. Yeah, this one came up at the DRV. Here's what I said at that time: This isn't about Sumpter Mall. It's about Teens hanging out in public places. Sumpter isn't mentioned until the seventh paragraph, and then just a few sentences, before the article moves on to the next sound bite from the next mall.
Shoppers Fill Stores Across South Carolina. I discussed this one earlier; it's not about the mall. It's about the christmas shopping season.

The bottom line is that none of these are about the mall. They're about other things, and just happen to mention the mall in passing. None of these establish notability. And, more to the point, there's nothing here that wasn't gone over in the DRV. Recreating this article was just being disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are notified before posting to this page, "Be aware...that commenting on other users rather than the article is...considered disruptive." Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from what I said at the DRV, "WP:GNG says, 'Significant coverage...need not be the main topic of the source material.' It is my understanding that WP:GNG can be established by a sufficient number of sources each with one relevant sentence." Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal A. Baker, State Business Writer (February 8, 1988), "Malls didn't succeed for 2 downtowns", The State (Columbia, SC), "But then Jessamine Mall, a regional shopping center, opened and an exodus began from Main Street to the suburban mall..."
Encyclopedic material, goes directly to satisfying WP:GNG. This is in a newspaper archive that covers The State. I'm sure you can find the title online, but the quote is behind a paywall. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Parents Flock to Sumter Mall For Free School Supplies", WLTX (Columbia, SC)
Here the name of the mall appears in a headline. This demonstrates the basic principle of wp:notability, which is that the topic has attracted attention from the world at large. Also goes to the factor that malls are part of the gazetteer as both venues and regional landmarks. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Sumter Mall hosting Junie B. Jones luau", The State (Columbia, SC), June 22, 2006
Again, the name of the mall appears in a headline. This shows that the topic has attracted attention from the world at large, and the topic may be worthy of notice as a venue. I found the source online, but the headline is the point, and I'm not suggesting that this is a WP:GNG source. Some of these archive searches don't return the expected results with exact wording, but an alternate phrase might work. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Caroline Fossi of The Post and Courier Staff (November 14, 2004), "Malls vs. teens: Stricter rules govern hangout spots", The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC), retrieved 2014-05-26, "Sumter Mall's policy, 'Family First,' was started this year and requires people 16 and younger to be accompanied by an adult 21 or older after 6 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays."
Here a writer in Charleston, 106 miles away, writes about the name of a policy in the Sumter Mall. That is in-depth to not only know of a mall's policy, but its name. Goes directly to WP:GNG notability. The only question for WP:GNG is how much weight does this one sentence carry. In this case, the weight only needs to be greater than zero, since the purpose for this source was to document for you that reliable sources other than The Item write about Sumter Mall. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Local & State". The State. August 10, 2011.
Used to source a sentence in the article. According to the article, "Local & State" is the name of the article. You can ask for help on the talk page, or even tag the source with a verify? tag if you doubt that the source verifies the material. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leonard, Michael (June 2, 1981). "60-Store Enclosed Shopping Mall Planned". Herald-Journal. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
I know that this was a good find because I tried to find sources in Spartanburg without success. We could have a long discussion about this source, since it is being used to source an alternate name for the mall. This alternate name I characterized in the DRV as "informal" because I only saw it used in online chatter about the mall. But the source also shows the name of the developer, so the source has two encyclopedic elements. I recognize that there is an argument that this is not a WP:GNG source. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Davenport (24 November 1990). "Shoppers Fill Stores Across South Carolina". Herald-Journal. Spartanburg, SC. Retrieved 28 May 2014. "The mall opened at 8 a.m. and was packed an hour later, Kathy Burnam, manager of Jessamine Mall, said."
Speaks for itself, a writer in Columbia appears to have interviewed the manager of the Jessamine Mall in order to help write an article about Christmas shopping in SC. How does a writer in Columbia even know this mall exists if the mall is non-notable? And why would the Spartanburg Herald-Journal reprint an article written in Columbia, unless there was material of interest to their readers? Perhaps you don't live in an area where Christmas is a major event and malls are a focus for Christmas shoppers. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say in a post above that this article doesn't mention the name of the mall. "Jessamine Mall" is one of the alternate names for this mall. It is also interesting that your quote mentions Shaw Air force base, since I didn't mention, when listing the population of the city, that there are an additional 19,000 people living in the area at the air force base. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is academic to argue that these seven sources don't "establish notability", since we have 19 more sources from the first AfD, even more sources have been added to the article while we have been having this discussion, and there are hundreds of more hits available. Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were 19 sources listed at the first AfD. Do you want me to list the 19 sources from the first AfD? Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the concern that Sumter is a "small town", I'll repeat the words in bold from the quote posted at the DRV: "city", "major hub", "city", and "a destination for the east central portion of South Carolina."
Comment Regarding the concern that The Item is a "small town newspaper", The Item is either a regional newspaper or similar. The Item is an established daily newspaper, and I saw that some of their editions went over 100 pages. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A sufficient number of sources cover the subject in sufficient depth to meet WP:GNG.- Mr X 15:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Tupou[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX not title fights of note. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant titles and he fails to meet WP:NBOX. I thought he might be notable as a rugby player because the article says he played for the Penrith Panthers, but several sources, e.g. [22], said he was playing for their junior team. Playing for the senior team in the NRL would show notability, but playing for a junior team doesn't. If it turns out he played for the senior team please change my vote to keep. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.232.186.227 (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles B. Hazeltine[edit]

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

Can't see anything in this article to make him notable. Fails WP:SOLDIER in my opinion Gbawden (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG or even SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG and fails WP:Soldier — dain omite 16:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jamie Gao[edit]

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

Unremarkable death, drug-related homicide that does not warrant a Wikipedia article, fails to satisfy WP:N/CA and WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High profile crime at the moment (largely due to the prominence of one of the men who have been arrested), but it's way too soon to judge if will have any lasting impact. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roger Rogerson. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ish. It's absolutely a notable killing, although the article does the most appalling job of pointing that out. Roger Rogerson is one of the most notorious former police officers in Australian history, having gone from being one of the more famous officers on the force, to beating several criminal charges, to being convicted of non-violent ones, and ultimately revelling in a celebrity status attained as a result. His co-accused is also a high-profile former police whistleblower. As a result of this, the case is receiving an enormous amount of media coverage, and is deeply unlikely to be a flash-in-the-pan. I disagree that a redirect to the Rogerson article is appropriate, a) because it would invariably lead to recentism issues in that article by shifting the focus away from the rest of his story, and b) because it focuses Wikipedia coverage on him over his co-accused, which strikes me as being a BLP violation. This said, the article was totally useless when written and has only been marginally touched since then, and I do feel as if - while it's absolutely a notable case - there isn't much point having an article if no one can be bothered actually covering any of the above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic case of "recentism". It was in the papers last week and might be again when it goes to court but the accusation/allegation is that two ex-cops-turned-dodgy-enforcers killed a drug dealer and kidnapper. And? Redirecting to only one of those accused is a major problem. He's been accused and charged but there has been no trial, let alone conviction. Automatically associating a crime (without explanation) to one of two alleged perpetrators screams WP:BLPCRIME violation to me, even though it's only of interest because he is allegedly involved. Just delete this and be done with it. If it turns out they launch a royal commission, or something, as a result of the case then we can revisit it. Sadly, just another murder. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst Roger has been charged, I'm sure his lawyers aren't happy with this being mentioned in a WP article so WP:BLPCRIME as Stalwart says as well. lastly, "absolutely a notable killing" is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article is about the death of a non-notable person in a controversial and sub-judice crime = WP:NOTNEWS + WP:RECENT. Wayne 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. A redirect to Roger Rogerson would be appropriate, should he be found guilty. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wayne_aus and Doctorhawkes and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony L. Piscitelli[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2008, fails WP:SOLDIER in my opinion. Reads more like a tribute than a WP entry Gbawden (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer. No significant awards. Just another serviceman killed in the war. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG or even SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:Soldier, and WP isn't a memorial. — dain omite 16:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers of Life, Oxford[edit]

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

Organisation has no obvious notability, no fixed abode, and no independent references. RomanSpa (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a church with congregation size of 50. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Without substantial (and up to date) evidence of notability, we cannot keep this article. I usually regret having to vote like this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy submachine gun[edit]

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

While this does seem a valid topic, there are no sources in the article, and various Google searches ("Heavy submachine gun" on Web and Books) seems to return no official sources classifying this beyond a submachine gun that is heavy. It was split out from submachine gun, but I'm not sure it should be merged back. Ansh666 07:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article from info added to Submachine gun page by User:OiBlud that was outside the scope of that article. At the time, I thought is was a reasonable compromise. Otherwise, I would have simply deleted the info outright. I agree with Ansh...There is no such classification as Heavy submachine gun and the weapons described within said article are simply referred to as machine guns. If other editors want to delete the Heavy submachine gun page...then so be it...I will not defend the page.--RAF910 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This is not a real class of weaponry. It may be descriptive when comparing Uzis to Steyr TMP's, but that has more to do with the manufacturing process and raw materials.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There does not seem to be evidence to support this as being an official class of weapons. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the described characteristics and examples, it looks like this article duplicates either Squad automatic weapon or Light machine gun or both. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the distinction that they fire pistol cartridges (e.g. 9×19mm) rather than rifle cartridges (e.g. 7.62×51mm). Still, I don't think this is an official classification. Ansh666 02:07, 5 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 Tampines#Education. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chongzheng Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't usually retain stand-alone articles for primary schools, absent substantial non-local coverage that is not present here. Tagged for notability over 2 years ago. Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tampines#Education per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There are several others listed there that should be RD'd too:

Ansh666 07:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tampines#Education per Ansh. Longstanding consensus for all but the most extraordinary elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tampines#Education. I can't find anything that would justify retaining this article. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:13, 10 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism in Ghana[edit]

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

This might be a candidate for Wikivoyage Polyglot (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a "Tourism in ____" article for many other countries, what specifically is wrong with this one? I certainly see issues with the article, and ways that it could be improved, but what makes it a candidate for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisarepa (talk • contribs) 07:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per WP:SK#1 - the nominator does not provide an argument for deletion. Ansh666 07:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Valid subject matter for Wikipedia. Close as nonsense with no valid rationale. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are a great many Tourism of... or Tourism in... articles and they often serve as valuable merge targets for other less notable subjects at AFD. Nothing to suggest Ghana is any different from any other African country (or country generally for that matter). Presumably they have a tourism industry, it has a dedicated government agency or organisation of some sort and it represents x% of their total GDP. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest - I commented before the page loaded (slow internet today) and it only opened once I had saved my edit. It's actually quite a lovely article with pictures, great wikilinks, references and some well-sourced content. Really can't see what would have prompted nomination here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#1 - that a certain topic is suitable for another Wikimedia project is not an argument in and of itself for unsuitability on this project. As noted above, this topic is very encyclopedic, and both a Wikivoyage page and a Wikipedia page about the same topic can coexist peacefully. Merging this with Ghana may create a WP:LENGTH issue. Mz7 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as created by a blocked user in violation of their block, per G5. Giant Snowman 17:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GS, his user page says he "may be" but the last SPI was in 2013. Any more clues? St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like I got it wrong with this nomination. Sorry about that. I'm.trying to contribute by helping out with page curation. Polyglot (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polyglot, Page curation can be hit-and-miss but WP:BEFORE still applies to AFD. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the pages I flag are clear candidates for speedy deletion. With this one I had my doubts, so I chose the third option, to initiate a discussion. Anyway, I stand corrected, firmly corrected, lol. I should probably have checked for the existence of other similar tourism articles. Also it was not because the subject was an African country. Apart from the misery, Africa is a beautiful continent and I agree the quality of the article is good.--Polyglot (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't think it was because it was an African subject. Anyway, you gave the community a chance to have its say. No real harm done. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy ~~delete~~ keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, snow? There is only one other speedy delete opinion (others are actually speedy keep). Is that what you meant? St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a typo. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per those above. Giant Snowman indicates on the User:MemphisPhiseux page that that editor may be a sock-puppet of blocked editor MarkMysoe. Has this been demonstrated? --Bejnar (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, including nominator's acknowledgement that it is a notable topic. --do ncr am 22:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: @Stalwart111: - this is such an obvious case of DUCK that I want to cover it in hoisin sauce and put it in a pancake. Giant Snowman 11:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, awesome visual. I don't know anything about the case or the history. There hasn't been any objection or appeal to your block and looking at some of the edit summaries they are very similar. Suppose it doesn't matter much now but thanks for getting back to us. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response @GiantSnowman:. So am I to take it that there was no investigation, IP analysis or ruling at a noticeboard? While both editors are interested in Ghana and football, and the first edits of MemphisPhiseux show a familiarity with editing (all things that are incidentally also true of Giant Snowman), the types of things that got editor MarkMysoe in trouble (Akanland and series of edits to disguise purpose) seem to be absent from MemphisPhiseux's edits, although the edit war at Jonathan Mensah was informative of boldness untempered by adherence to Wikipedia policy, and seems out-of-character for the sleaziness and sneakiness attributed to MarkMysoe at the ANI ban discussion. A couple of other points of interest are that MemphisPhiseux does not have an account on commons and seems uninterested in images, while MarkMysoe had such an account and was very active with images; and that MarkMysoe was blocked on 3 January 2013 and MemphisPhiseux did not begin editing until 18 May 2014. The other two named accounts that are listed as potential sockpuppets of MarkMysoe ceased editing on 12 January 2014. Since I did not look at every edit of MemphisPhiseux and MarkMysoe, and since I am not experienced at analysing sockpuppetry, I may have missed the "quack", but it is not obvious to me (no hoisin sauce for me please). --Bejnar (talk) 20:05, 4 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Quinn[edit]

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

All coverage seems to be based off one fairly unremarkable harassment incident, fails WP:BIO Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 04:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this article fails to meet the notability requirements. Paisarepa (talk) 07:34, 3 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) 15:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? I see you've only been editing from this account for a few days, so I'm interested to see your understanding of said notability standards. (No offense, nothing personal, I ask because honestly my understanding wasn't that great in my first week here.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sergecross73. You're right, I not exceptionally experienced, and I welcome correction. I try to just read the notability guidelines and apply them to the article. I believe that WP:ARTIST could apply here, but the subject of the article clearly does not meet the criteria (I can go into why she doesn't meet each one of the criteria if you would like me to, but I don't think that's necessary). She doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC because she is only notable for one event (WP:1E). She doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG because she has received "significant coverage" for only one event. She has received some coverage for other things (an article on her body modification, and an article on her Game Developer Help List) but not significant coverage (though she was the subject of the articles, so there is that). It seems pretty cut and dry to me that if the only references for this article were those related to the harassment issue, she wouldn't meet notability guidelines. Likewise, if the only references for the article were those not related to the harassment issue, I don't think that she would meet notability guidelines. I could certainly be wrong, but it appears to me that the two combined still don't meet notability guidelines. It seems to me that this is essentially the same as taking a WP:1E article, adding references to newspaper articles about the person winning events in high school track, and claiming that those articles make the person notable beyond the single event. With that said, I'm lacking in experience around these parts, so if I'm misinterpreting the notability guidelines, please correct me. Thanks. Paisarepa (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She passes the WP:GNG due to the variety of sources that have dedicated articles about her, and she passes WP:1E because she's received coverage for multiple different things:

All four sources are deemed reliable by the relevant WikiProject at WP:VG/RS. All 4 sources cover her in significant detail. (And there are far more than just these 4.) This is what makes her pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:BIO/WP:ARTIST. (You'll note that BIO/ARTIST are part of "Notability (people)", which ultimately is based off of/answers to the GNG.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sergecross73. Paisarepa (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources, such as the one from Edge, are from reliable sources and cover the subject in significant detail. The third party sources dedicated directly to her, make the article meet the WP:GNG. (Though the article needs a massive rewrite, I'll concede that.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edge is indeed a reliable source. The article needs improvements but should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by TxFineArt (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yep, the article surely needs expansion, but even Serge's four sources above (EG not really about her, but the others...) adequately cover Quinn as an individual (sigcov) in regards apart from a single event. There is plenty in the sources to sustain a full article about her. czar ♔ 19:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources produced thus far seem sufficient to pass WP:BIO without falling into WP:ONEEVENT. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. Prasad Babu[edit]

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

After much thought I believe that this fall unders WP:BLP1E. The subject is only known for his (sad) death. Most "significant coverage" of the subject is mirrored from one news source, as a cursory web search would show. If event was really as important, I believe a single article for both the event and a small mention of this Indian policeman would suffice. This reads more like an obit to me. Delete ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~It's prima facie BLP1E, but the problem is the Ashoka Chakra~~. According to the notability criteria for Military (yes, I know he was a policeman but his police force is paramilitary), an individual is notable (with sources) if they have won their country's highest award for valour and he has. ~~I'm not sure how the two opposing factors play off against each other.~~ Philg88 ^♦talk 08:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retain, The winners of a country's highest military awards are inherently notable. It would not be right to apply same standards of notability with regard to Google links and sources as a Western country which is media saturated. AshLin (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The person has won his country's highest gallantry award and I think that's enough to establish notability. Ndtv , Thehindu, Deccan Chronicle and the New Indian Express sources are independent from each other. It's a bit sad to see that an article about a martyr who had been posthumously awarded India's highest gallantry award, is being nominated for deletion.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:MILPEOPLE would apply as the article's subject was awarded Ashok Chakra, India's highest peace time gallantry award. Also WP:BLP1E may not apply as the subject is not a living person, hence the article is not a BLP. Apart from that, I do not see any paucity of sources as the person received enough coverage in regional and national publications, but all of these may not be in English (which is never an issue). Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does the nominator mean there should be an article about the event where the subject lost his life and is awarded the Ashok Chakra for his acts there? The event would be a bit trivial and such Maoist and Naxal attacks are plenty in number. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The prime rationale pointed out by the nominator is itself invalid considering he is dead. A person receiving the highest military honor is notable, even if he is from paramilitary or a private security company... ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 12:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winners of a country's highest award for valour, military or otherwise, are intrinsically notable. Every recipient of the George Cross, for example, has an article, and the Ashoka Chakra replaced it in the Indian honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per AshLin, Philg, Dharmadhyaksha and others. By winning the Ashoka Chakra he is indeed EXTREMELY notable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:02, 3 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 speedily deleted by RHaworth as G3. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asia`s Next Teen Top Model: Guys and Girls[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any references for the existence of this season. Even the linked article is about season 2 only with no reference to season 3... Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 03:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. I can't find any mention of the show on the Internet and while I'm aware that there could be sources in other languages, it's extremely, extremely unlikely that a new season of ANTM would not have at least some coverage in English language sources, as evidenced by English coverage for Cycle 2. Given the show's popularity, there would be some coverage of a third season- especially one focusing on teens. I think that this is a hoax and I'd like to say that it's not the first time someone tried to create a hoax article around ANTM in general but the Asian version in specific. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even see where Cycle 3 has been officially greenlit. It probably will be, considering how fairly cheap, easy, and fast it is to film a season of ANTM in any country, but so far there's nothing official, let alone to say that it will focus on teens of both sexes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. No sources found. Also qualifies for Deletion per future film. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 after original author blanked the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ark Toy Company[edit]

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

Local coverage doesn't seem to meet requirements of WP:CORP. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 02:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a bit of coverage there but its mostly passing mentions and entries in general "best of" lists (inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all). Most of that which might be considered coverage comes from local papers. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While this is no doubt an excellent small toy store chain, gaining appreciation in a few weekly tabloid readers' polls does not equal substantial independent published coverage of the subject. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing references in local sources insufficient to pass notability requirements for companies. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 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 Nomination withdrawn. Had I known we had a List of Vogue cover models page I would not have nominated this for deletion. However, the article still needs to be cleaned up. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vogue Paris cover models[edit]

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

As with my previous AFD on Vogue cover models, this is not a defining moment of a modelling career (in fact, this article has a section similar to the list already under AfD, though to be fair, it is for Vogue Paris rather than Vogue (note that I have little to no knowledge about the world of fashion). Unlike the other list, there are no sources in this article whatsoever. If there was a page for a list of models that have appeared on Vogue Paris, I could have supported a merge there, but there isn't one (and if there was, it would be difficult to maintain, as it would need updating every month, and it wouldn't work as a category either). Strangely, we don't have a List of Playboy cover models page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Withdrawing per the comments made below. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not sourced, it seems easily and obviously verifiable and sourceable by the individual Vogue issues. Vogue Paris covers are also the subject of books [23], which is evidence of meeting WP:LISTN, and discussed in others [24], [25], although not extensively. I see no reasonable deletion rationale.--cyclopia ^speak! 13:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's the type of article I'd find very useful. It doesn't have inline citations, but like cyclopia mentioned, the sources are self evident from the text of the article. If I want to verify that Audrey Hepburn graced the cover, the publication as well as the date is right there in the text of the article. It could possibly be overkill to cite at the bottom what is plainly stated in the article. I think it's an obvious keep. Bali88 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with Bali, this is an useful article, which collates verifiable information in a very nicely laid out, easily checkable format. Unlike the other AFD, this is actually useful. Mabalu (talk) 11:07, 5 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. Wifione ^Message 12:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folliot family murders[edit]

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

Non-notable murder - fails WP:N/CA. G S Palmer (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTTRUECRIME. WP does not exist to chronicle every murder, even those As Seen On TV. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:NOTJARGON. —Mythdon ^{(talk contribs)} 09:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing sustained reliable source coverage or evidence of lasting effect per WP:EVENT. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems like the type of case that would get a lot of media coverage, however, I'm not seeing a ton of media coverage in English sources. To me, it seems likely that this case may have been quite notable in France. If someone can find some sources I'll vote to keep. If not, I'll vote to delete. Bali88 (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of the French coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although, there isn't much I can do with that as I don't speak the language. lol Bali88 (talk) 07:11, 10 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.