< 22 May	24 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies over Italian Fascism’s political placement[edit]

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

This article is a "POV fork" of fascism, synthesis, and a copyright violation and is about a non-notable topic.

The author created the article after failing to insert text into the article on Fascism that said Benito Mussolini had spoken about a "century of the Left", rather than a "century of the Right" in the Doctrine of Fascism.[1] Jane Soames's first edition of the book in English indeed used the word "Left", but the word used in the original Italian was destra ("right"). No secondary sources have been provided to explain the error. L.K. Samuels, in his article on which this article is based, claimed that the fact fascism is left-wing is "a dirty little secret that has received little attention." The purpose of this article is to correct that.

The article combines statements about fascism that could lead one to think it was left-wing. No attempt is made to use a reliable source that says anyone else has put these statements together and drawn the same conclusion.

Expanded versions of the article, called "Hitler and Mussolini: History’s Dirty Little Secret" can be found on L.K. Samuels' website.[2][3]

TFD (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree totally with what is written above: this is a typical case of WP:POVFORK. I would like to add that together with this article, two more articles have been created at the same time, all rotating around the sentence "century of the left": one about Jane Soames, the translator of the Doctrine of Fascism, and another one (whose submission has been declined) about the translation of “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism”. I would like also to point out that the “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism”, which is cited here, is actually a book published for the first time in Italy one year after Soames`s translation (in 1935), and it bears the same words ("secolo della destra", ""century of the right") as the part of Gentile`s and Mussolini`s article appeared on Treccani Encyclopedia and translated by Soames. Moreover, all the translations of the “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism” later than 1935 which I could find (in English, French and German) have also the expression "century of the right". So, the idea that Mussolini had told Soames to replace ( NOT translate, since the translation is unique) "destra" ("right") with "left" is senseless, and goes against 80 years of historiography of Fascism: no Italian secondary source (De Felice, Gentile, etc.) never pointed out this alleged change of course of Mussolini which - if true - would have been of enormous importance. About the different interpretations of Fascism as ideology, they find already their place in the Fascism article. Alex2006 (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could be better titled "Why my pet fringe theory is right and all of academia is wrong". It's a polemic that masquerades as an encyclopedia article. Fascism already covers this topic well, and we don't need a POV fork that introduces synthesis and fringe sources. I'd love to write my own POV rant about fascism, but this obviously isn't the place for it. Put it on a blog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others' comments above and my own comments on the talk page. It's a blatant essay-style POV fork and in fact a variation on an entry that was actually declined at AFC but which was then posted in mainspace in a slightly altered form anyway. N-HH talk/edits 12:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per nomination and per others' comments. This is an opinion piece. -- Jersey92 (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork per The Four Deuces. COI editing here and, inter alia, at L.K. Samuels and Jane Soames also probably needs looking at. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to delete. Sockpuppetry merely reduces their arguement exponentially the panda ₯’ 10:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Laoutides[edit]

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

An apparently non-notable actor, perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. He has some very minor appearances in notable projects and starring roles in films lacking any independent coverage (and which are themselves now up for AfD). The article was sourced to IMDb and the production company's website. In response to a "notability" tag, a couple more sources have been added, but they are in sources called Style Ology and World of Models that do not appear to qualify as substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I have been unable to find anything of the sort we would usually accept, such as newspaper or magazine profiles. Arxiloxos (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find much either; he fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs)
Delete per above. I can't really find any coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Everything is either WP:PRIMARY or in unreliable places. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well known. Styleology magazine (find it at your local Barnes and Nobel or Boarders book store) requires you to pay to read the magazine online. I found a copy of the magazine article in which is a five page spread on Zachary Laoutides that I updated in references. Still looking for more references about upcoming films or films in production. makingfilm (:)) — Makingfilm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Struck !vote by sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ignitepictures. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a notice at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Style-ology Magazine requesting additional opinions on whether that magazine, and specifically the interview, qualify as independent reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - World of Models, worldofmodels.org, looks like solid online magazine/editorial. Looks like Zachary Laoutides is a model, although it's not mentioned in his article. Maybe now an actor turned model...? The styleogoy magazine touches base on this, although nothing in his bio mentions the previous modeling. Possibly the films are too soon, maybe a redirecting of the films unitl more film coverage (note- he's solid on IMDB and it compliments the production comapnies website)? Maybe I'm wrong, however, I've seen much less references and much more lack-luster articles housing unknown talents. User:mikeyiron (◕-◕)]]— Mikeyiron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Struck !vote by sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ignitepictures. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did some searches and Zachary Laoutides pops up on gaming sites, check out author Matt Forbeck's website Matt Forbeck. Also check out or search for Brave New World (role-playing game) film. Zachary is all over the website and is on book cover's potraying one of the superhero's. You need IMDB pro to see the film, but Zachary Laoutides is listed and there's trailers/episodes on-line. Not sure why it's not mentioned in the article. User:Melissamartin (-----)]]— Melissamartin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Struck !vote by sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ignitepictures. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:11, 1 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. Now that promotional material is removed, the sourcing can be looked at to help determine GNG - which as argued is weak, but existent the panda ₯’ 10:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charley Marcuse[edit]

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

Non existent notability , and if this is "notable "under the GNG, it's the best proof yet that the GNG is useless for an encyclopedia . Promotional as well, including information of how to order his T-shirts.

Accepted at AfC. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~Overly promotional, but that's fixable.~~ Fixed. The guy seems notable to me. He's gotten A LOT of press. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about GNG being useless. Bali88 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the GNG is worthless as an appropriate tool for deciding on what is included in WP, if the human interest coverage received is considered to make this individual notable enough for coverage, because it leads to a result that harms the credibility of WP as an information resource. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being a little harsh. Human interest stories if substantially covered would seem to be appropriate to cover as long as they aren't related only to one event. This one seems borderline, but I don't see why a long time hawker who develops fame and a product line can't be notable? Perhaps the way the article was written was more of a problem? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I disagree that it harms the credibility. The way that I look at it, wikipedia should include all facets of life. If it's important enough to have a decent amount of ongoing news coverage, it's important enough to have a wikipedia article. I can't see how it could harm the credibility of it. It surprises me that you would argue to keep UFO's in outer space, but argue to delete this one. To me they seem similar in terms of media coverage and "seriousness". Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from! :-) Bali88 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I worked on the article a bit and fixed the majority of the sourcing issues as well as the tone and NPOV issues. Bali88 (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This guy looks like he's good at self-promotion. I hate to reward that, but he's got coverage in 2004 from the Sun-Sentinel and Toledo Blade; in 2010 from ESPN; in 2013 from the Los Angeles Times; and in 2014 from the Detroit News. That seems like continuing, significant coverage from a wide variety of sources. In a sane world, my favorite academics would have articles and hot dog vendors wouldn't, but this is the world we live in. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for someone that sells hot dogs and now is a mustard salesman, he seems to have gotten a surprising amount of coverage, as outlined above. Meets the WP:GNG quite easily. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Martin (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Has no credited regular season appearances at the NFL level and a Google search doesn't yield any information that is notable. The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 20:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable for his non-existent professional career. At the college level, offensive linemen are rarely notable and he does not appear to be an exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - career does not satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there does not appear to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 17:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Charlie[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 20:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage supplied, none found in a search. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This is just far too soon to merit an entry. It could be userfied, but I'd highly recommend that it be through a non-COI editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per being TOOSOON and lacking the coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). MAYBE a redirect to Zachary Laoutides as film's story, producer, and lead actor.... IF such can be properly verified. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Rye[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recreation after PROD is valid, but fails WP:NFOOTY by virtue of having not played, and we don't predict the future. Ivanvector (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boxxy[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:BLP1E. The current state of the article tries to have its cake and eat it too, by referring to 'Boxxy' as a character by which is created by the individual, trying to shy away from the BLP prospect. But the article does not describe merely the character, but the person who plays it as well. I believe that in this case, (and that the talk page signifies this), that this is a BLP article and therefore, it qualifies for WP:BLP1E deletion. The last afd resulted in a delete and it has been recreated since then. The sources in itself only describe Boxxy in the context of the viral video, and the majority of the sources in this article refer to it in this context as well. It must also be noted that 9/20 sources are Youtube videos. The individual person is only notable with regards to the 'Boxxy' internet meme, and therefore, cannot exist without the meme. Even if this article were to be split into two separate articles, one cannot be talked about without the other. This would place both the split articles into BLP categories and this nomination would still apply. I also note that due to the nature of this character and the resulting Internet counter-culture among other things, there may be single purpose accounts that register only to contribute to a 'keep' or a 'delete' !vote. I implore all individuals who !vote to carefully consider policy based arguments for both sides. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The previous AfD ran at the height of Boxxy's internet fame and determined at that time that she was not notable, despite coverage from the Guardian and the Globe and Mail. Five years later she's just another vlogger with no reliable coverage at all. WP:15MOF seems to apply here. Ivanvector (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and a comment: this AfD may attract canvassed socks but please remember to assume good faith. Ivanvector (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
plus a note: there is a concurrent AfD regarding Boxx - that article is in no way related to this one. Ivanvector (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources suggest she is at least marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Other than the two I mentioned they all seem to be either her own YouTube channel or blogs. Ivanvector (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is obvious here from a plethora of reliable sources. The BLP1E concern is misplaced. Notable fictional characters, e.g. Larry Bud Melman, Manny the Hippie, Naked Cowboy, S. K. Thoth, Chris Crocker, do not become non-notable simply because they are the product of a performer who is unknown outside that role. This article is a part, however minor, of Wikipedia's coverage of Internet culture, an encyclopedic subject. If we ignored all of these memes, we would have no coverage. Major news publications have seen fit to write articles entirely about the subject, which is what notability is all about. The earlier AfD was closed out of process and did not meet a consensus among the many Wikipedians who commented, but in any event the article and sourcing are substantially improved since then. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, the sources primarily cover the individual's role in Boxxy's viral video and since the article mentions and makes claims about a biography of a living person, it is therefore considered to be a BLP and is subject to the policies and guidelines of that, including WP:BLP1E. As well, the argument you are invoking is the other stuff exists argument, and shouldn't be used as there is different criteria for each page and differing circumstances. If you don't feel an article is notable enough, you can nominate it for deletion. But please don't invoke the lack of deletion of another article to say that this one is notable. Tutelary (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, my point is that you don't seem to understand BLP1E. It's not intended to preclude coverage of famous characters or actors in notable roles, that would be absurd. You seem to have OSE backwards as well, I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument, not trying to claim this article is better than other articles out there. Incidentally, it's poor form to barrage every single keep vote with a repeat of your argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not, but the characters in which they're made have been persistent in their notability. This one has not, and has BLP implications. Additionally, I have not yet seen any evidence of any long term notability. Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as an extremely notable meme / fictional character. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a BLP and is therefore subject to WP:BLP1E as it makes claims about individual person's. It instructs that we are to avoid articles that just primarily relate to the individual who are only notable for event. Catherine is only described with credance to Boxxy, and maintains a very low profile individual out of that. An article about it is what WP:BLP1E specifically states to not have.Tutelary (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating your argument to every Keep !voter here won't help it be deleted you know .... Since your arguments been answered above I'm not going to bother replying to it!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, this Afd is a discussion on whether this article should be kept. The discussion cannot be furthered if there is no further inquiries other than the initial !vote. Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Subject meets WP:ENT criteria 2. There are multiple reliable sources since 2009 detailing the subject, therefore demonstrating WP:SIGCOV. The fact that there is 9/20 YouTube sources isn't an issue; that's why we have WP:ABOUTSELF (and further, used in line with WP:PST). Note to the nom: bludgeoning the process does not assist your cause. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to be taking the criteria or the nomination to its point. This person fails WP:BLP1E, and is only notable in context of one viral video, the absolute reason that BLP1E policy was created in the first place. I would also like to say that you should discuss the content, not the editor making the content. Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to respond to the policy/guideline points I have made, or just continue to repeat the same line in hope for a different outcome? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have reliable sources to prove of said fanbase, I simply don't believe there is any lasting notability of this individual. The articles suffers from WP:RECENTISM and the sources demonstrate that. There have been no new recent reliable sources that has demonstrated any lasting notability of the subject. Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The non-YouTube sources do give indication of notability and WP:ENT is met. Some users are under the impression that WP:BLP1E somehow "bans" articles about topics that became notable stemming from one event. It doesn't. It states very clearly it is meant for the privacy of "low profile" individuals who found themselves in the news (ie "Peoria man accidentally mows off own foot."). An internet character who's creator has done everything possible and succeeded to ensure it's high profile is needless to say not "low profile" by any standard. --Oakshade (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability that the subject has been given is only from this one incident. Could you somehow establish what lasting, long term notability this subject has other than for the viral videos? It was also established in the other Afd that TheGuardian and the Boston Globe and Mail were not sufficient enough sources to warrant a keep. Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love when noms admit the notability of a topic in their own statements ("The notability that the subject has been..."). Not only does WP:BLP1E permit articles on topics notable for "one event," but this is a series of videos, or "events" spanning years, not "one event." Coverage, like that of from AOL has been published years after the original video demonstrating lasting significance. "BLP" aren't magic letters one can summons to delete articles on notable topics. If anything in this case, I would honestly say KEEP per WP:BLP1E. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources about the subject? Yes. But not enough to have granted a 'keep' conclusion on the old afd. The AOL only mentions the topic just in passing, in just one of the 100. It is generally said that when the article only mentions them in passing, it's not a sufficient resource, especially for a BLP. To be included on a list of 100 is not a claim of lasting notability, which is required per WP:BLP1E. Just because some news organizations have reported on it does not establish long term notability. See WP:NOTNEWS. Again, please focus on the content, rather than the editor at hand. Tutelary (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're referring to the article "The 100 Most Iconic Internet Videos" in which there is only 100 of, which even you admit. This is 100 out of tens of millions. Again, you're making the case of keeping this article. And WP:GNG's example of "passing mention" is a "one sentence mention". The sources are far beyond the scope of "one sentence mention." The coverage of this person are not news reports like "sports scores" as what WP:NOTNEWS attempts to discourage. If you've like to change WP:BLP1E to be about non-"low profile" individuals, you need to make a case on its talk page, not invent your own definition is a single AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about general notability guideline. This is about WP:BLP1E. Tell me, what is the long term significance of the subject? Long term, what is she known for? One event? Btw, the AOL list listed her as #104, not even within the 100, and the editorial choice not to view millions or billions of hours of footage I think is reasonable. The person is a low profile individual, and has not done anything outside of the viral video to get noticed. The 'low profile individual' is what BLP1E explicitly says

If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

Boxxy meets this criteria. Tutelary (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And with this I confirm KEEP per WP:BLP1E as this person is not "low profile" and has continued to garner coverage years later and thus has not remained "low profile." (that's cute to argue a point on GNG grounds - your "passing mention" argument - and then claim "This is not about general notability guideline." Having your cake and eating it too?) WP:BLP1E links to WP:LOWPROFILE which defines one who has received media attention without their consent or is a victim of "ambush journalism," which of course this character and person has not. The more you bring up WP:BLP1E, the more you're making a case for keeping this article.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not cite WP:GNG for the basis of this afd. I cited WP:BLP1E, and the fact remains that there is no long term significance. How about I hold your feet to the fire and beseech of what you claim the long term notability of the subject is? Tutelary (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize you've mentioned "BLP1E" 13/14 times... Give up and accept the fact Boxxy's notable and consensus here says just that!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) You used the GNG argument "It is generally said that when the article only mentions them in passing, it's not a sufficient resource..." Notability is not temporary. That this character and person has received coverage years after their first video ("event" as you call it) further demonstrates lasting notability. Whether you accidentally argue with GNG or BLP1E (for the 15th or so time), you're only confirming the KEEP arguments per those guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's another good source: Epic Win for Anonymous: How 4chan's Army Conquered the Web. Andrew (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I'm a user case. I wanted to know more and came to Wikipedia (where else?) to find it. Notability in the dark ages may have been selectively delivered by men on horseback, but things have changed. Googling gangnam style, harlem shake and leave britney alone lead to Wikipedia, so why shouldn't Boxxy? It's my frank opinion that suggesting this article should be deleted is nothing more than snobbery. Wikipedia is after all an internet resource, and thus coverage of internet phenomena (low or high browed) should feature prominently. And whether we like it (her) or not, she does feature prominently on the internet.^{Citation schmitation!} It's utterly ridiculous to consider deletion on the grounds that she's not notable. If policy doesn't agree, the policy needs review. The girl has memes for goodness sake! And FYI; Overly Attached Girlfriend <-- I rest my case. fredgandt 01:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is purely other stuff exists argument and should not be invoked to demonstrate the lasting notability of this article. There are differing circumstances which cannot be compared. Gangnam Style was a national, well known song, and was the first video to reach 1 billion views on Youtube, as well as influencing culture in multiple events and propelling PSY to nationwide media attention. That's lasting significance, because it had a lasting effect on the culture. Chris Crocker, as well, did this, and instead has done multiple media attractions so as to not qualify for BLP1E:

Signing up for a pornographic film.
Having a song that hit #3 on iTunes Electric charts
Having "Me at the zoo" be purchased the rights by HBO Documentary Films

These demonstrate lasting significance to the subject other for than one event. Boxxy, currently does not. I have not seen the lasting significance on Boxxy, and dancing around other notability guidelines is a bit discouraged when BLP1E is what's being argued. It also sounds somewhat like the WP:ILIKEIT argument. Tutelary (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You LIKE quoting policies and guidelines don't ya?

Personally, I don't like any of the "internet celebrities" I mentioned, but they (or rather their existence is) are fascinating. The article in question is also pretty awful, and if kept (as it should be because the subject is notable as others have clearly shown) it could do with a clean-up, which is perhaps something you could do.

"Lasting effect on culture"? What exactly has that got to do with notability or verifiability?

I seriously think you're missing the point of Wikipedia, Wikis in general and the ideal of crowd sourced documentation. The fact is that even if WP policies and guidelines say "blah blah blah" (which most do), we can (or at least should be able to) think and act for ourselves. As I stated, I found the article as a user wanting to know more about the subject. I am part of this discussion because the information I was seeking has been somewhat pathetically marked for deletion by an editor who frankly seems a little trigger happy when it comes to deleting stuff, and if you get your way, others like me (the purpose of the Wiki is first and foremost to provide information for people seeking it, and not to serve it's own agenda) will be far harder pushed to find the information elsewhere.

Poorly referenced information about obscure subjects is better than nothing, and we have the templates to highlight where readers should take what they see with a pinch of salt. Instead of trying to fix Wikipedia, try and fix the articles. Find sources where missing. Add templates asking for clean-ups and expansion. Add to the project by building the repository.

Don't be that guy.

Some other policy, guideline, spewage to peruse: WP:PETTIFOG, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:EDITDISC, and my personal favorite WP:PTG. Enjoy! fredgandt 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it, but it's a necessity in debates about policy like this. The lasting effect on culture was referring to your WP:OSE argument that since PSY's Gangnam Style got an article, this should have one too. They are two separate situations with differing circumstances. Also, I would prefer that you not focus on the contributor, but rather on the content. It should not be about my editing patterns or anything of the sort. The argument that poorly sourced content is better than no content is not true in the case of WP:BLP, and the WP:GNG. Also, the notion that just because an article is useful or interesting is the WP:ILIKEIT argument, and shouldn't be regarded too highly. Last thing, I'm a lady. Tutelary (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vacuous and pointless though this YouTube "celebrity" might be, there are numerous independent sources which focus on her as a primary subject. It must have been a slow news year. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong keep ~~The page is terrible, as it is basically one sentence explaining what videos "boxxy" uploaded. After looking at CaptainSparklez's page, I feel like this article should be kept.~~ Edit: After looking at WP:BLP1E, and WP:15MOF I decided that there is absolutely NO reason to delete. Just because it needs cleanup, doesn't mean it has to be deleted. this policy does not apply here, as there is more than one sentence about one video. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but WP:BLP1E can't possibly apply when the person has been releasing more videos for over six years. I hope to never see another Boxxy video, but the independent sources in the article show that this YouTube character is notable, and as the actress, now 22 years old, is continuing the act, any concerns about the phenomena being a flash in the pan are no longer valid. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to weak keep mostly per WP:SNOW but some editors here have made good arguments. I reaffirm that there are only two reliable sources cited, the rest are fanblogs but the volume lends further evidence of notability. My feeling is that Boxxy is notable for having posted some videos which led to a moderate disruption of 4chan, but that's it. The rest of the article is WP:FANCRUFT. Some editors here have suggested that notability is established because her videos get a lot of views. That statement is WP:SYNTHESIS - unless there's a source that notes explicitly that the videos are important for this reason, we can't make up that rationale. Simply uploading videos to YouTube is not notable at all - literally anybody can do it. That's YouTube's model, in fact. The links to those more recent videos and the discussion about them should be removed, per WP:IINFO. Also, why is the Discovery Digital Networks navbar included with her (real) name on it, but no mention of this whatsoever in the article? Ivanvector (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete with a big caveat. I'm a fan of this actress, which makes me biased, but it also makes me informed, and someone who has used the article. As I write this, Catie Wayne has just been flown to Costa Rica by the Discovery Digital Networks for something called "Sloth Week". They've started featuring her more prominently. Six months ago, she was uploading her own videos, and a year and a half ago, she had only uploaded a dozen videos total, which is less than her average week's output today. Last month, she was a panelist at a convention in San Francisco for fans of My Little Pony. To many of her fans, for Catie Wayne to be known for doing Boxxy is like Susan Sarendon being known for doing "Rocky Horror". Catie Wayne is not Boxxy. She is beautiful and intelligent, with amazing comic timing, and there will be a Catie Wayne article eventually. It's painful to say, but dropping the Boxxy page may be the necessary prerequisite.FelixRay (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — FelixRay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: if there is a point where Catie Wayne's career becomes notable separate from her character Boxxy, there could be a case for including a page on both, or more likely including a section on Boxxy within Catie Wayne's article. That's definitely not the case now. She is notable (and only marginally so) because she is Boxxy. Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having familiarized myself with the notability guidlines, I now have to reluctantly agree. The notability guidelines strive for objectivity, and while I believe that focusing on Boxxy creates a distorted picture of Catie Wayne, the actual person, I can't prove that objectively based on what the world cares about. Time will quite possibly take care of this. FelixRay (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator, I have already noticed problems with the particular sourcing on the article. For one, The Guardian's blog is still listed even though it's a blog, and therefore not reliable. This was mentioned in the old afd and accepted, but for some reason, it's still in the article. Second, there are two unsure sources that need addressing. Lastly, one link is dead (though dead link template can easily be applied) I'll mention this all in the talk after this afd, though I still do endorse deletion, for the reasons mentioned above and that I have argued. Tutelary (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper blogs are generally considered RS if they are subject to the newspaper's editorial oversight. I don't know if that's the case for this blog in particular; that would be a question for WP:RSN. I suspect it is, since the Guardian is regularly cited around here. Ivanvector (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Ivanvector said. News blogs from reliable sources are generally considered reliable sources. Just because a that source and its reporter are publishing in a blog format doesn't magically transform the otherwise reliable source into some teenager's Livejournal account. --Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, that that blog is ultimately one author's opinions and has not been subject to the Guradian's ultimate editorial control. It is not reliable, and this was established in the old afd, as well. I beseech that you take a look at that. Tutelary (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're going back to a WP:GNG argument now. Opinion pieces are not discriminated against for being acceptable coverage as long as the coverage is from a reliable source. It could be a piece called "Boxxy is the Biggest Waste of Time Ever" and that would still be considered significant coverage. News blogs from major newspapers like The Guardian are always subject to editorial control and can be deleted or amended by editorial direction at any time. Even readers comments are subject to editorial oversight.--Oakshade (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true. There are many tabloid-style "newspapers" which exert no control whatsoever over what gets written in them, but still gets passed off as news, and many more that would not withdraw a column but merely issue a retraction while keeping the original column intact. I'm sure the question of whether or not it's appropriate to use The Guardian columnists' musings in BLPs has been answered before, and there appears to have been a rough consensus in the previous AfD that the column referenced in this article was acceptable. Tutelary, if you disagree you could ask for an opinion at WP:RSN. Ivanvector (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Masroor Ahmed[edit]

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

There is no point of creating an article for one of the UN generals, unless he is extra ordinary special and made notable work. Abhilashkrishn (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:SOLDIER, individuals who attain General ranks are considered notable. AfD is not cleanup. There appears to be plenty of information available if someone is interested in writing about him. Ivanvector (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. General officers are considered notable per WP:SOLDIER and WP:OUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a high-ranking UN official at the level of Assistant-Secretary-General who deserves representation on Wikipedia. All Under-Secretaries-General and Assistant-Secretaries-General are considered to be high-ranking UN officials and it is worthwhile to make their biographical information available to the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catharine Smith (talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Étienne le Gros[edit]

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

I see no evidence of notability in the single line of text indicating that this person was the second son of a nobleman. By what standard is such a person included? Because they existed and had a moderately notable parent? bd2412 T 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless there is more that is not given here, I can't see any reason why this person shouldn't just have a mention on his father's page. The fact that he exists isn't enough for an article. Bali88 (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. 舎利弗 (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The argument surrounds WP:NFOOTY - which states "Players who have played in, managers who have managed in, and referees who have officiated any FIFA sanctioned senior international match". One link (which appears here, but not in the article I believe) shows he played in CONCACAF Champions league, which is FIFA-sanctioned. Therefore, without having tested the validity of the source, the individual appears to barely meet notability as defined the panda ₯’ 10:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie Bodden[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Liga Nacional de Honduras is a national top flight. While this is true, the league is not confirmed as fully pro, meaning playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has this player played in the CONCACAF champions league? If so then would be notable Seasider91 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this, yes, he played in the group stage in the past competition. Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIf he's played in the CONCACAF champions league then that certainly makes him notable as this is a notable competition. Seasider91 (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's a better reference of one of his Champions League appearances - [4] Nfitz (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Giant Snowman 12:08, 19 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GiantSnowman. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. Appearances in CONCACAF Champions League do not confer notability, as it is not a fully professional league. Number 5 7 21:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (original close "SNOW kept... again"). There is a clear consensus among participants that this meets the GNG and is not a BLP1E concern. While some of the people in favor of keeping this are involved in the article, either in its writing or in the DYK nomination, but there are also a large number of uninvolved participants saying that this meets the GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Poklonskaya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E, and even that event's disputed. Laun chba ller 15:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - You joking right?..—Stemoc (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:BLP1E isn't at all applicable. She is the Prosecutor-General of the new Republic of Crimea, and has been participating in the suppression of the Crimean Tatars, among other things. She is certainly notable. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I think your are referring to the press conference Poklonskaya gave and her ensuing meme status when you mentioned BLP1E. However, she is a Prosecutor-General of the Republic of Crimea, so she clearly meets notability requirements. Overall, this is a nomination of a clearly notable article, so a speedy keep is appropriate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. First of all, it's not a WP:BLP1E cause she is notable for multiple events that are already discussed in the article. Second, she passes WP:GNG easily cause there have been many, many publications in reliable sources dedicated to her personally and discussing her career in detail. Third, as noted in the previous deletion discussion, she is the Prosecutor General of a large region and a self-declared independent state and therefore is notable per WP:POLITICIAN. By the way, it was snow kept the previous time. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK #2c. This was kept a month ago, and no basis has been identified for revisiting the question so rapidly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the above; this is a clearly notable person. bd2412 T 18:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Closing admins should take note of the fact that this article is incompatible with WP:BLP1E and the keep arguments boil down to WP:HOTTIE, which isn't policy. I note previous nomination was closed without taking this into consideration. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, some sense. If Poklonskaya is so blatantly notable, how come no clear consensus has emerged at Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya yet? Barney, your final point is one for WP:DRV. And anyway, I use Twinkle, so I don't even notice where the nomination is put.--Laun chba ller 19:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well my thoughts are that this article is destined to be deleted, but it's a matter of when. The longer it's left the further it is away from the WP:1E of WP:BLP1E, and the more apparent the WP:BLP1E status is as people realise the complete lack of coverage subsequent to her 15 minutes of fame. Finally, the original author of this seems intent on promoting Russian nationalism to the point where the Russians authorities can do nothing wrong. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer, the DYKN is inching towards not featuring the article on the front page not because of notability, but because of editorial judgment. Do you even read the pages that you link to, or are you just trying to make it look like the link supports your argument?

Question for Barney: You mention BLP1E. What's the "1E" in BLP1E? What's the one event? You're not being clear enough. You can't just pull out policy links like buzzwords without actually explaining why it doesn't meet BLP1E. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Belisquare (talk · contribs) - the 1E is the internet meme that lasted until everyone got bored with it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. I saw AfD for the fourth time on the page and thought enough. I read the article and agreed, she is only notable for one event - being the prosecutor general of a region does not make her notable. If she was the prosecutor general of a country, then that would be different.--Laun chba ller 20:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a direct quote from that page: "What goes on the frontpage is a matter of editorial judgment; there is no entitlement for any article to run on DYK, no matter how well it "meets the criteria", and there is certainly no entitlement for any one DYK entry to occupy the "pictured" spot." You're not making any sense by using the DYKN as an argument. If you want to argue policy, argue policy; don't make misleading statements by bringing DYKN into this. Not being DYK friendly is not one of the criteria for article deletion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was what clinched the nomination for me, though that doesn't take away the fact that this article fails WP:BLP1E.--Laun chba ller 20:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may disagree with the BLP1E argument; as someone who plays an integral role in the Crimean crisis, she's a pretty important person, no less involved in the entire crisis than Sergey Aksyonov, Oleksandr Turchynov and Arseniy Yatsenyuk. She also was responsible for putting Ruvim Aronov behind bars, and she is also the unfortunate subject of an internet following. That's multiple reasons for notability already. Also, stop messing around with my formatting. You're refactoring my comments. I don't want that forwardslash there. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I am afraid you have an unconvential understanding of WP:BLP1E. Poklonskaya at this point is notable for at least three events: Press-conf, the warning to the Majlis, and the fact that she made it to the list of individuals sanctioned by the EU. Somehow you argue that since all these three things relate to the Crimean crisis, she fails WP:BLP1E. But then say Joachim Murat would also fail WP:BLP1E, since he is only notable for his role in Napoleonic wars and pretty much unnotable outside of this context. This is clearly now how we usually apply WP:BLP1E.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She is known for more than one event. According to WP:Politician, individuals who “ have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office” are notable. Furthermore, even local politicians can be notable if they “have received significant press coverage”. Poklonskaya clearly meets this guideline, so she is an individual notable for her position, but who also got a sifgnificant spike of coverage due to her one speech and meme status. This is not grounds for deletion because if the 1e, the internet meme and press conference, had not occurred, she would still meet notability requirements. Unless you are arguing that her meme status has somehow decreased her notability (which to be clear, it does not), then there are no grounds for deletion per BLP1E. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article meets the WP:GNG. Some editors may not like what the article entails, however you cannot deny that if people are actively looking for it on Wikipedia, it is therefore notable. This article has gotten 592,691 hits within the past 90 days (despite only existing for 65 days), which would suggest that this individual is just as notable than Jimmy Wales, whose article has a meager 113,292 views for the same time period. Wikipedia is written for the readers, and not a bunch of know-it-alls who write articles. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (another waste of time, this) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously notable as they hold a notable office. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 21:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes criteria #1 and #2 of WP:POLITICIAN. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually don't want this to be speedy closed, because the previous AfD's WP:SNOW close has led to dispute among some users. Anyway, just like to say that If BLP:1E refers to her Internet popularity (the 1E is the internet meme that lasted until everyone got bored with it. Barney the barney barney) how in the world can the career section be over 84% of the body and has 35 references? There is no way the article does not satisfy WP:GNG. Also, being the prosecutor general of a region does not make her notable. If she was the prosecutor general of a country, then that would be different Launchballer - look at Category:State attorneys general in the United States. I think we have 500-1000 articles on state attorneys in the US. starship.paint "YES !" 22:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Architect (software)[edit]

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

Some 95% of the entire article is one big advert for the company. Almost everything except the opening sentence.

One could easily cut 80% out on ground of not matching Wikipedia principles (e.g. "Wikipedia is not a manual"), but the remaining 20%would require so much time that it is perhaps easier to delete and start over LMB (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:B2B. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Possagno[edit]

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

Subject fails both general and football (soccer)-specific notability guidelines. A PROD was removed by the creator in the belief that the subject had played for Portogruaro in the third tier of Italian football, which is listed as a fully professional league as per WP:NFOOTBALL. However, there are no sources to verify his actually playing in that league, as opposed to signing for a team in it, other than the user-edited and thus unreliable Transfermarkt website. That site's claims of Mr Possagno's appearances in matches for the Portogruaro club are contradicted by other stats databases and by match reports in the media and on the websites of their opponents. Please see examples at WT:FOOTY#Fabio Possagno. Struway2 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There don't appear to be any reliable sources to verify the subject's appearance in a fully pro league, and thus we can't say the article passes WP:NFOOTBALL. There is also no indication the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus failing WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverified. He is not confirmed to have played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devil in the window[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 14:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Bovineboy2008 says, there's no evidence of substantial coverage in independent sources or other basis for this to pass Wikipedia:Notability (films). Another in a group of related articles that read like marketing material and provide no independent evidence of notability; I have also looked on my own and found none. Possibly an instance of WP:TOOSOON. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. There's just nothing out there to show that this film passes notability guidelines. It could be userfied, but it'd be best done by a non-WP:COI editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF and is TOO SOON. Allow undeletion or recreation only if or when the film is released and gets independent coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adios Vaya Con Dios[edit]

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

Non-notable film that has not yet been released and has no coverage, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 14:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Bovineboy2008 says, there's no evidence of substantial coverage in independent sources or other basis for this to pass Wikipedia:Notability (films). The article as written reads like marketing material. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bovineboy2008. The only extant info is from IMDB showing it is preproduction. Does not establish notability.--Theredproject (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb does show it's in post production but there are next to no sources available. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. In a recent edit an editor tried to add a couple of sources [5][6] while also improperly trying to remove the AfD notice. But neither of them qualifies as independent, since they are publicity pieces from the website of the director and the production company. --22:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete per above. It could be userfied, but it'd be best if it was done by a non-COI editor. Other than that, there's just no coverage out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recently updated Zachary Laoutides Styleology magazine (find it at your local Barnes and Nobel or Boarders book store) requires you to pay to read the magazine online. I found a copy of the magazine article in which is a five page spread on Zachary Laoutides that I updated in references. Zachary Laoutides listed as the writer and actor validates the film. Also, referenced on the companies website www.avefenixpictures.com as well as IMDB. In addition I have found a radio interview and another magazine, trying to retrieve the source material or find it hosted by a third party in reference to the film.makingfilm (:)) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — Makingfilm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck !vote by sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ignitepictures. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a notice at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Style-ology Magazine requesting additional opinions on whether that magazine, and specifically the interview, qualify as an independent reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF and is TOO SOON. Allow undeletion or recreation only if or when the film is released and gets independent coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I respect all the opinions on here, but checking the references this film looks solid. It's just not a poster, there's tons of stills and the film looks to have had a decent budget. The others, yes, too soon. I'm checking out the production company that is a solid source and even lists musicans well noted in Mexico. The film is an American film, but Latino themed. I would redirect the other films to Ave Fenix Pictures if there is a page for them. User:mikeyiron (◕-◕)]] — mikeyiron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on improvements, consensus is to keep the panda ₯’ 10:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Andrews[edit]

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

My original prod stated: "This person doesn't seem to pass WP:N, failing WP:BIO including Wikipedia:Notability (creative professionals) requirements." A radio journalist; references are limited to a four-line obituary. Nothing suggests this person achieved anything warranting inclusion in an encyclopedia in his life. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: actually he was very well known for his assocaition with boxing and RTÉ though not so much recently which may be why online sources don't cover his career well. It certainly need expanding and I found greater details here for a start off (no time to do tis myself now though). ww2censor (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting source, through one obituary is not enough, I think. Can you find more sources? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 13:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've extended the article, added more detailed sources. It's enough for this article to stay Mrluke485 (talk) 21:40 23 May 2014 (CET)

Keep: sufficient notability, shown by the newspaper sources. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete the panda ₯’ 10:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WebEdition[edit]

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

Original prod was: "This seems to fail notability requirement, in particular Wikipedia:Notability (products) and Wikipedia:Notability (software)". Declined by User:Fayenatic london with rationale "has sources". I never said it didn't, I just said and will say again that they are inadequate (four refs, one to SourceForge hosting website, one to own website, two to some niche websites). As written, promotional spam of non-notable product. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 16 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another PHP-based CMS without mention outside niche press. Compliance with WP:GNG would require at least some coverage outside the scope of e-magazines devoted to web development. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titoni[edit]

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

no notablity and promotional Puccetto (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake: article is Titoni--Puccetto (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced (WP:V) and therefore also presumed not to be notable (WP:N) until proven otherwise. Also blatantly promotional in tone, possibly a G11 case. Sandstein 15:12, 8 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 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 13:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing of substance in my searches via Google/GBooks. Also blatantly promotional as pointed above. Cavarrone 13:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald White (dog trainer)[edit]

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

This article is about a dog-trainer that fails to meet the notability requirements for inclusion. The subject appeared on a now defunct PBS show a few years ago but have no lasting notability. The article is now being used, likely by the subject, as an advertisement for his business including the posting of coupons (since removed). Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. SagaciousPhil - Chat 04:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 13:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with SagaciousPhil. I don't see WP:GNG getting passed here. NickCT (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Also agree with Sagaciousphil, as I see no evidence of notability; the article also seems a bit promotional even after Ponyo removed the link about coupons. Epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sagaciousphil. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No clear consensus to delete the panda ₯’ 10:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buck (personal name)[edit]

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

None of the entries qualify as given names. I've transferred nearly all of them to either the new (and much more extensive) Buck (nickname) or to Buck (disambiguation)#People. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but move Buck (nickname) to something more inclusive of given names and stage names, so that Buck (disambiguation)#People can be emptied of specific people. My goal with Buck (personal name) was to include given names, stage names, nicknames, etc. in one place, but it looks like "personal name" is largely synonymous with "given name". I can't think of a good all-encompassing descriptor though. Maybe the answer is to merge all the Buck people, including Buck (surname), to Buck (person)? —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 14:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think that's a good idea. Both Buck (nickname) and Buck (surname) are pretty long as it is. Merging them would make the whole thing unwieldy. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're not unwieldy if they're kept alphabetized. The goal of dab pages is to get the user to the page they were looking for as quickly as possible, and I think splitting the list into separate pages on the basis of a fairly fine distinction (given names vs nicknames vs stage names) gets in the way of that goal. If I were looking for a particular Buck, a longer list in one place would be the quickest to navigate. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 19:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unless some masochistic sysop wishes to merge and redirect the mess left over. Go right ahead, guvnor. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 13 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 17:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Why are these lists and not dab pages?? Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists (and set indices) are more focused. Dab pages wander all over the map with a variety of entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this before, but these should absolutely be dab pages, not lists or set indices. All the entries have in common is that they are people - there's no common topic here. Precedence on disambiguating people by name is very clear on that. —Swpb^{talk•contribs} 19:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is contrary to MOS:DABNAME, and there is (was?) an editor who has been diligently moving them off dab pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 13:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete the panda ₯’ 10:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QxOrm[edit]

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

There is no evidence at all that this satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are no independent sources cited in the article, and a Google search produced various pages at www.qxorm.com, qt-apps.org etc, download sites, the Wikipedia article, forum posts, a bug report, etc, but nothing that could remotely be considered as substantial coverage in an independent source. The article has twice before been deleted, once speedily and once by PROD. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm a little out of depth here as I'm not really a programmer, but glancing at this QxOrm seems like an important part of C++, which is a major programming language. Googling provides lots of relevant links, though I'm having trouble find higher quality RS on the subject. NickCT (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:B2B: the article does not describe the software itself – it merely provides short description of its genre immediately followed by the example creep. WP:RED may serve a good basis for deletion if independent reliable sources covering this topic in sufficient detail are found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webindia master[edit]

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

No significant coverage in the multiple reliable sources, therefore does not meet WP:NCORP standard and qualifies for deletion. It reads a bit WP:PROMOTIONAL as well. All sources cited in the article are the official website links of some companies, organizations, this company claims to have worked with.

Additionally, It is created by the WP:SPA User:Amrishtyagi (Amrish Tyagi), the founder of the company as per article. Not sure, how it managed to survive 4 months since it was created in the early this year. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional page for a firm offering ordinary wares (though I am intrigued by the idea of AltaVista search engine optimisation in this day and age). No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. As above, refs provided are corporate sites that may have been produced by the company and not significant coverage. A search turned up no RS coverage of this company.Dialectric (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus seems clear enough - even the page creator doesn't think the subject is notable. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linda A. Tsuji[edit]

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

Person does not appear to meet notability requirements per WP:NACADEMICS nor WP:GNG. Only reference in article is based on a press release from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology which is not an independent, third party source. Tsuji apparently has around 20 publications according to Google Scholar, but there is no indication of major awards or distinctions given to Tsuji, who appears to be a research associate (according to this U of Washington press release), and not a professor. While Dr. Tsuji is mentioned or quoted in a few articles regarding Bunostegos (e.g. This Bumpy-Faced Reptile Ruled the Prehistoric Desert), the coverage is passing and incidental, and appears largely based on the above-mentioned SVP press release. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created this stub in the hope that I could create a decent article, which appears to be unfounded. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With an h-index of only 9, well-meaning creator should consult Google scholar before creating stubs of academics. Incidentally, it might be a courtesy to consult the subject to ask them if they want a BLP stub about themselves. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slavko Brekalo[edit]

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

Comment: Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any signs out notability immediately. Has this player won any cups or tournaments? That would change the situation, depending on the scale of the victory of course. If not, I don't see how it's worthy of an article. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Giant Snowman 12:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Number 5 7 21:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Bobkov[edit]

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

WP:AUTOBIO Article created by User:Sbobkov possibly a coincidence but also only article contributed towards Amortias (T)(C) 21:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the nominator: is the probability of being an autobiography the only reason for deletion? Deltahedron (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 17 is good for a pure mathematician. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cites look good, and the subject probably also passes WP:PROF#C2 as a recipient of two well-known prizes. WP:AUTOBIO in itself is not a strong reason for deletion, and the content of the article doesn't seem unduly self-promotional (although there are some style issues that should be fixed). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Actually, the cites are pretty weak. The only independent source with more than a passing mention is the Humboldt Research Award link. The rest are his CV and a visiting scholar blurb that may well have been written by him. I'm not sure what to make of the Humboldt Research Award - it's awarded to 70 researchers annually and the 60,000 EUR is good, but not spectacular, for a year of research - but at least it comes with a description of the importance of his research. So I think it's on the hairy edge of keep. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most "keep" !votes focus on "consensus of notability of individual models", but no such consensus is found/shown. On the contrary, AFD jurisprudence shows no such consensus. Without *significant* external coverage, this model appears to fail GNG on its own the panda ₯’ 10:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha FZ700[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. There is no independent evidence this is notable. This is is a prime example of violating the principle, "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note that the nominator converted the page to a redirect without warning, redirecting it to the Yamaha FZ750 page with the comment that "", but the other page doesn't (and never did) cover this unique model. The editor made no effort to merge the content or the sources to the new article. Nothing passes or fails WP:PRODUCT as the guideline provides no litmus for notability, but this nomination is a prime example of failing to remember that deletion is a last resport. There's plenty of hope for expansion as references are available. (I've added two in the last week, with four in the article total now.) -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this subject meet the WP:GNG? WP:PRODUCT is a specific section of the specific Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guideline. Has the FZ700 ever been the subject (not just mentioned in passing) of coverage in independent reliable sources? I found zero coverage, and only passing mention in an article about the FZ750. The important point about WP:PRODUCT is that we don't automatically create an article about every single model of bike ever made. Or "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" as Wikipedia:Notability says.

To clarify, the 3 links currently in the article are an unreliable scraper site [7], a dead link[8] (to an old scaper site) and a personal blog post[9]. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per long-standing WP:CONSENSUS, individual models of motor vehicles are notable provided they meet WP:V. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite which consensus you're referring to here? I'm aware of a common misconception that every model gets an article, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions says no such thing; on the contrary it suggests merging stubs of related models might be a good idea. WP:MC-MOS specifically addresses the misconception, and points out that the guideline WP:NRVE in Wikipedia:Notability overrides any claim to automatic notability: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists." If we did presume every individual model was notable, we'd be left with thousands more motorcycle permastubs than we already have.
  Not to mention the stylistic gains from upmerging related models to form a more coherent narrative. But if there is a consensus on this when we need to change the motorcycling and automobile guidelines to say so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Bushranger, Models are generally notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, where is the consensus for this idea that a model is inherently notable? What's the basis? Many motorcycle and car "models" are actually other models with slightly different names. Many purported "models" received literally zero coverage in reliable sources. If this one article per model idea were followed, we'd have hundreds to thousands of permastubs with zero sources. The fact that there are models that exist yet never got substantive coverage is proof that not all models are generally notable. Notability requires verifiable evidence.
  Look at the precedents:
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTM 50 SX 8 unaimous !votes to delete a bunch of placeholders created by somebody who thought all models are notable. If every model were notable, this would not have happened.
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzuki RF400R, kept, but not because all models are notable
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha Yz85 deleted for copyright infringement, no claims that all models are notable
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTM 250 EXC-F No !votes arguing all models are notable
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEV 10 LRC No !vtoes, let alone consensus, that all models are notable
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kd50qt-4 ditto
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cb500 ditto
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero Honda Karizma R ditto
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha XJR400 ditto. Another permastub.
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha YFZ450 ditto
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha Bruin 350 ditto
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha Raptor 700R ditto
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honda CB500T Maybe? one !vote "Made by notable manufacturer". It's been a permastub for 8 years, and will remain one, by the way.
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlas Honda CG 125 !vote "A commonly used motorbike is certainly notable" was rejected, article was userfied. But then it got moved back to article space for unknown reasons. Still a permastub with zero reliable sources.

These are all the examples I can find. Please show me where any consensus was reached saying we have to make an article for every model of car or bike. I won't lose sleep over keeping this article on its merits, but this idea that WP:NRVE doesn't apply to models is a disturbing precedent, and requires broader consensus at WikiProject Motorcycling and WikiProject Automobiles, and WikiProject Notability for that matter. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - motorcycle models are not inherently notable, as Dennis has poitned out so well. The Times article is the only reliable source. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sam McMurray. Consensus is clear that the character is not notable itself. Normally, this would redirect to a "list-of characters" article, or section of an article about the show itself. Oddly, the consensus (even considering WP:SOCK), consensus is to redirect to the actor's article - I would assume that's because the character section for the show is poorly-developed at this time the panda ₯’ 10:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supervisor Patrick O'Boyle[edit]

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

Non-notable character from a sitcom. References are all primary sources to the TV series itself. Google does not show any obvious signs of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The TV series The King of Queens have articles for Dough, Carrie, and most notable characters. Giving the fact that this is one of the most known characters from the show, and that other characters from the show had articles, I naturally assumed it would be notable enough or worthy of an article. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, since the character had an IMDB page, I naturally assumed it was notable enough. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/ redirect to Sam McMurray? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

I would see that as quite a waste of all my work, but rather that than delete. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. It's hard enough to get people to comment on my AfDs, and now all I get are sockpuppets? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "sock puppet"? Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since people obviously don't really care enough to share their vies on the matter, I'd say just re-direct it to Sam McMurray. Rather that then delete. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A sock puppet is a second account that is used abusively. If I created several additional accounts under different names, tried to hide the fact that I created them, and then used them to give the fake impression of consensus (or avoid sanctions), that would unambiguously be sock puppetry. However, it's perfectly legitimate to have secondary accounts, as long as you properly disclose them and do not abusively edit with them. For example, many administrators maintain a second user account to use when they are on insecure networks. Redirection is fine with me. Maybe we'll get more input soon. If there's a character list for King of Queens, that would be a perfectly legit target, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:41, 1 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:Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harshvardhan Rane[edit]

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

"Being launched"? Seriously a candidate for WP:Too soon. Fails notability tests despite supposed references. All are PR material before the event to seek to publicise forthcoming movies Fiddle Faddle 12:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep has 3 reliable sources and more 1, 2, 3, 4, meetS WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BASIC, and per WP:NTEMP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, already done five films in Telugu cinema, now making Bollywood (Hindi cinema) debut. --Ekabhishek^talk 05:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although online processing and crypto-currency may be notable in general, the arguments put forth show that there's no proof that this individual one is. the panda ₯’ 10:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moolah[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability standards of significant coverage by independent reliable sources Agyle (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few articles that mention Moolah in one passing sentence, describing it as a payment processor. There are also a few articles that mention an errant charitable contribution worth around US$15000 made by the company's founder, but these mention the company only incidentally. I found one article about Moolah, on Coindesk 2014-05-05. Agyle (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 9 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Moolah is a fairly important aspect of crypto-currency particuarly for dogecoin (which is by no means a small currency) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BinarySquareRoot (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective importance of a topic is not considered in determining whether articles topics are considered "notable" enough to be kept (by Wikipedia's definition of "notable" - see WP:GNG if you'd like to read the guidelines for article inclusion). For the most part, Wikipedia's "notability" is based on significant coverage in multiple, independently-published "reliable sources" (for example, certain magazines, newspapers, scholarly journals, and websites). Agyle (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see sources which evidence the notability of this cryptocurrency under WP:GNG --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Typically, this would redirect to the gubernatorial election article. However, that specific article has not been wikilinked in this discussion, and I'm not about to guess. Consensus is to delete, but nobody would be horrified if it was recreated as an appropriate redirect the panda ₯’ 10:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Falchuk[edit]

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

Subject's business career has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the sources are about his business and not about him personally. The two sources that cover him somewhat significantly are not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". One is a website where entrepreneurs interview other entrepreneurs and whose editor-in-chief's only journalistic credit is being a "pro blogger" at his own blog [10]. The second is a "network of popular health bloggers" who are "health commentators, not a news source" [11]. His political career is notable for only one event – the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial election. Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It's strange that the article makes no mention of his gubernatorial campaign when the best sources I have been able to find 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are all about his run for Governor. However, I'm not sure this coverage goes beyond routine and is enough to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN and avoid, as Hirolovesswords says, WP:1E. I'd say redirect for now. Then it can be easily re-created if/when he garners enough coverage to warrant his own article. Tiller54 (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not qualify for an article on Wikipedia just for being a candidate in an election (or even multiple elections) — and as notability is not inherited, he doesn't qualify for an article just for being the brother of someone who does, either. So what do we have left — he's notable for being the president and vice-chair of a company that doesn't even have an article to link to? Hmmmm, no. Delete (I'd also accept redirection to the article on the election campaign); no prejudice against recreation if (and only if) he actually wins the election. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 03:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Christmas 2[edit]

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

Non-notable mixtape. Only references are to Youtube videos. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 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, Mz7 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 12:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mariah Carey live performances[edit]

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

Unreferenced, doesn't meet WP:SAL. Article provides little to no explanation of significance, and has little context beyond a lost itself and one short sentence. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No actual reason given for deletion. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should've phrased it differently, but list provides little context. The lack of sources also is a red flag in terms of WP:V. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand what you're saying, but it looks like a cop-out/easy way out. There might not be any references in the article - not to mention Carey's tours have never been extensive nor do they necessarily receive much coverage - however, I guarantee you could find quite a sizable amount of info to make this article quite meaty and informative. You could just go to those album pages and see all the references available for said tours.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 12:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable concerts. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mariah Carey. There is nothing at all in the article that cannot be summed up in the main biography. She was never a touring artist and did not do it extensively. Everything we have is present in the main bio or the album pages. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I suspect, given the references within the individual tour articles, that there is sufficient material to develop a list of Mariah Carey concert tours that is similar to those of Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, and Rihanna. Maybe some of these sources can help: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Gongshow talk 17:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Campus law enforcement in Oregon. In a purely numbers game, this would look like a No Consensus, but I don't see much in the way of policy to back up either of the Keep arguments, so I'm not giving them a lot of weight. doncram's suggestion seems like a reasonable compromise, so I'm going with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oregon Police Department[edit]

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

all large universities have police departments, the article is full of routine descriptions of what this department does, and for this reason I also oppose merge. Secondly this department has no significance outside the university LibStar (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate Oregon Health & Science University Police for the same reasons. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable law enforcement organisation with nothing other than routine coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was astonished at the claim that "all large universities have police departments". However, I see from Campus police that it may be true for all significant parts of the world. In passing, I was able to learn about the Cambridge University Constabulary before that reaches AfD. It is a shame I was not able to read the articles about the Preschool Special Operations Forces because they seem to have been deleted already. I expect there was no indication of importance. Thincat (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively - Neither parent article even mentions their campus police departments as of this post, not even once. Therefore, selectively merge:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in university articles, any coverage at all is too much. A campus police department is no more important in the university than, say, the maintenance department. Really you wouldn't write about it, if you were developing an article about the university. I "vote" for a different merger below. --do ncr am 01:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Campus law enforcement in Oregon and redirect. Much of this article is on the state law, not specific to this one campus. The state article asserts this one is the only campus police department in Oregon of some type, a vague notability claim perhaps, but better to merge. The "Campus law enforcement in Oregon" article can possibly include a list-table of data on campus security / campus police departments in the state with size information like having 90 officers and so on, if there is a source for such. I agree that few if any campus police departments will be notable; fire and police departments are mentioned in nonbinding essay wp:MILL which i came across recently. Perhaps state-level lists is a way to deal with perennial issue of campus police department articles. Merging and redirecting is better, per wp:PRESERVE. --do ncr am 01:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The University of Oregon and the Oregon Health & Science University are the only two University's in the State of Oregon that have their own Police Departments, making them somewhat unique. Additionally, Oregon Health & Science University's department is even more unique in that they are unarmed Police Officers who have an entire senate bill written into law specifically for them. Tiptoety ^talk 16:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it may be unique but it completely lacks third party sources. why can't the "unique" facts be simply mentioned in 1 or 2 lines in the university's article. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with Libstar. But IMHO, the facts about a police department, unique within Oregon or not, probably don't merit coverage in a university article. They would merit coverage in a statewide article about campus law enforcement, though, so why not mention them in 1 or 2 lines in the statewide article. --do ncr am 02:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with rationale as written by Tiptoety (talk · contribs), above. Especially with the unique status of having a special State Senate Bill written for the organization. — Cirt (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Yemen relations[edit]

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

this article tries to claim there is an actual relationship but each source is about wanting to trade, wanting to co operate more with no evidence of actual significant trade, migration etc. They also want to sign an agreement but haven't. The sources come up when a new non resident ambassador is assigned and then they say the usual want to co operate more statements. LibStar (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Even the nom describes sources in detail of the relations of these two countries. Sources that state the non-functioning state of relations between two countries are actually about the relations between two countries. On an extreme case, the United States and Cuba have no official relations with each other, yet that state of non-relations is still a notable topic (Cuba–United States relations). Descriptions of a non resident ambassador relationship is actually a description of their relations. --Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US Cuba have hostile relations which makes notable relations, like north Korea and US. You are using a poor comparison. Bangladesh and Yemen only talk about wanting real trade relations without any evidence of it really occurring. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The in-depth sources description of no real trade relations or wanting them is actually a state of their relationship. While obviously not your intent, you're making a stronger case of notability of this topic.--Oakshade (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Foreign relations of Bangladesh, where there is already a section on the Middle East with Yemen missing. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, warrants a separate article.--Zayeem ^(talk) 11:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again we face an AfD nomination that simply assumes that Third World countries aren't capable of having bilateral links of importance. In fact, Bangladesh and Yemen have a historic relationship, shared colonial experiences, centuries of trading relationship. Yemen was actively involved in the politics around the 1971 war. http://books.google.com/books?ei=fASBU97hLYXeOv_rgcAL&hl=en&id=7K5AAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22bangladesh%22+%22south+yemen%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=yemen has hits for 22 pages for 'Yemen' (however, I only have snipped view). I have done some expansion on the 1971 period. --Soman (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the nomination has nothing to do with third world countries and their ability to have relations. Where is the evidence of centuries of trading? LibStar (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Coconut Generation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD. This should have been deleted at its previous AfD: there are no established reliable secondary sources covering the book, and the ones which are included fall far short of what we'd consider to be appropriate to consider a book notable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBOOK. No evidence of notability outside of personal blogs and publications directly linked to the author or his organization. The blog hits suggest importance to South Asian Christians but I'd expect this to be evident in independent sources, and I can find none. Ivanvector (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't really find anything independent of the author that would show notability. I found a mention in this article, but the article isn't about the book. There was a journal review but I can't verify that George isn't a member of the organization or how the reviewing system there works. Even if we count this review, it still wouldn't be enough to show it passes NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about this review? And the book is noted in various books and articles. Candleabracadabra (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem I found with the review is that I couldn't tell if it would be considered a RS or if the author was or wasn't a part of the organization. Mostly it's that I can't verify if it'd be usable, since it's published through Lulu- making it a SPS of sorts. If you can find enough sourcing I'm willing to change my vote. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boxx[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a minor programming language, apparently two guys' hobby project, recreated after a previous AfD. No sign of use or influence. None of the given references pertain to the topic of this page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a speedy deletion criteria, specifically the recreation of a page deleted per a deletion discussion. However, it's 7 years old. The article is mainly just elaborating on the language in itself and the syntax and all that, but has no reliable sources nor good enough references. No notability given. Tutelary (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 13:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to the history, the article was recreated via "content review" (a process I'm not familiar with) so I'll say speedy doesn't apply, however I can find no evidence of notability whatsoever. Ivanvector (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Boxxy is an unrelated article. Ivanvector (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be filled in by Special:Prefixindex, which is added by Twinkle automatically. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - programming language (software) article of unclear notability. Refs provided do not have clear connection to subject. Several predate the language, Rapid Deployment Software, the only linked ref makes no mention of Boxx; none of the books have page numbers for verification. A search turned up no RS coverage of this language. Dialectric (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dialectric's rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Porter[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER, not really notable Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it as it has local interest to Chicago residents. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too junior to qualify under WP:SOLDIER and not especially notable in any other way. Having "local interest to Chicago residents" is irrelevant, and Chicago is not even mentioned in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple reliable sources) and we wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt under WP:SOLDIER as he doesn't meet the rank or award minimums. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to dig up another source that describes Porter's transition as the pre-commissioning commander. So far, even with this new source, I agree with the above assessments from Necrothesp, Gbawden, and Peacemaker67 but I'll be looking for additional sources tomorrow. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been unable to find additions sources; I do not think the existing coverage is sufficient for WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER guidelines. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any notability Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scheferlitis[edit]

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

Article is made up and full of nonsense. No reliable references for Scheferlitis. Titles of articles have been altered. Pure garbage. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Delete Looks like ((db-hoax)) to me. Zince34' 09:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Hoax (and probably a joke about someone called Schefer). Copied from BK virus with minor changes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious hoax.TheLongTone (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted A2 and probably copyvio too. Peridon (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hirebelaguli History[edit]

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

Article not written in english , ~~also seem to constitute hoaxes and advertising. Seems to be copy-pasted from somewhere else. Zince34' 07:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nominator's Comment:After Inspecting the article's revision history, I found that the article has been taken from a book which itself is a copyright violation and also an inappropriate page. Zince34' 07:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as gibberish. Google translates the first sentence as "Millions of years ago, the body of heaven mahaspota nabho a fragmented system, the sky, the air, water, earth, sun, astronomers should be created in the five demons." See also Grama Devate Pavada and kn:ಗ್ರಾಮದೇವತೆ. jonkerz ♠talk 13:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A2. Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. Looks like this is similar content to the Gramadevate (ಗ್ರಾಮದೇವತೆ) article in the Kannada Wikipedia. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:FreeRangeFrog as WP:G3, blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cacticalia[edit]

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

Probable WP:HOAX. Unreferenced article with no Google hits for "Cacticalia" and a few unrelated for "Cacticals". The plant in the infobox is an Echinopsis mamillosa and not a cactus animal thingy. jonkerz ♠talk 05:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per nominator. Gems like "New scientific evidence suggests that Cacticals may actually share a common ancestor with both plants and animals" suggest that this is someone's bad idea of a joke. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You have an image in the infobox, and then you have something that reads like there have been no fossils found look like a hoax for now. Zince34' 08:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. "In particularly dire scenarios, cacticals can eat themselves to maintain their daily fiber requirements" my aunt Jemima.TheLongTone (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Hoax, anyone? Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Hoax Many outlandish claims with no references. --Jersey92 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is it blatant enough for a ((Db-hoax))? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuper Tario Tros.[edit]

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

This particular flash game does not appear to be notable. It had a bunch of reviews on a bunch of websites a few years ago but nothing has come of it since, suggesting it was only a flash in the pan. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources includes significant coverage ranging over almost two years, proving it's not a "flash in the pan" thing. I firmly believe the references in the article, which are from common reliable, independant sources, clearly establish notability of the game, and I am frankly quite surprised at Ryulong's insistence in seeing this deleted. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I don't think this 5 year old flash game really meets the notability requirements. Why does it matter that I went to AFD after you de-prodded it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage is sufficient to meet basic notability requirements. Notability is not temporary so the lack of more recent coverage is irrelevant. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has good enough sources, it just needs better inline cites. KonveyorBelt 17:21, 23 May 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) 19:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The game has dedicated coverage from multiple reliable and respected sources: [21][22][23]. (For VG source reliability, see WP:VG/RS.) Hey, do I care about it? No. But others did enough to write about it, and that's what matters here. Re: "flash in the pan", see "notability is not temporary". Open and shut case. czar ♔ 20:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but is this coverage "significant"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are entirely about the game, I'm not sure how this can be considered anything but significant coverage (as opposed to passing mentions in relations to the developper's other game). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No reason to delete when there is this much coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Jimqode (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salv and Czar. It's not the type of thing I personally find appealing, when flash games rip off established popular IPs, but it received enough coverage. (And if we followed the rationale of this poorly formulated nomination, we'd be required to delete any game that doesn't get remade/rereleased/ported every couple of years, since that's really the only way games keep receiving consistent coverage post-release...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Billy Petrolle. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Petrole[edit]

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

Duplicate subject of article Billy Petrolle with less meaningful information, doesn't seem to merit a text merge. MaxPayne888 (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Redirect Good catch - this could have been made a redirect without bringing it to AfD but now that it is here.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pledge of Allegiance to the Philippine Flag. As 舎利弗 points out, this is an unlikely search term, so kind of pointless as a redirect. Still, redirects are cheap, and there is a clear consensus to do that, so that's what's happening -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maka-Diyos, Maka-Tao, Makakalikasan at Makabansa[edit]

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

Motto not notable in itself to merit its own article, lest the reader of this nomination should argue that every national motto should have its own article. Also, no significant coverage on the subject to write the article with. Sources only make passing mentions of the motto. 舎利弗 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, i add more Sources,footnotes and Citations that according to the proper references to the improvement of this Articles.. P.Andrew (sgd) (talk) 9:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Philippines. Not enough independent notability, but a possible search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that. Google Trends does not even show a graph because the thing almost never gets searched. 舎利弗 (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we could still expand this article, it should be kept. However, since it may not look notable, and the expansion has become stale, we could redirect this one to a more suitable article. Japanese Rail Fan 13:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Philippines or Pledge of Allegiance to the Philippine Flag. Both articles are plausible retarget candidates.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pledge of Allegiance to the Philippine Flag.--Staberinde (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete. The nom is, on its face, invalid as per criteria - but the goal is to create discussion and improvement to the article. The sole delete argument might be stronger overall, .but the "keep" !votes balance it to "no consensus to delete" the panda ₯’ 10:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Pump Festival[edit]

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

Biased for far too long. The article was tagged as being promotional in 2007, no help since. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not initially added to the AfD logs. Done now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being promotional does not equate to being non-notable. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:15, 16 May 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) 14:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Strong Keep per Lugnuts - AFD isn't used for clean up, Read WP:FIXIT. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Lugnuts is of course correct that the nominator User:Mr. Guye did not cite any valid criteria. Let me, then, propose this: the spare coverage shown in the article does not suggest that this passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). (I am afraid that this AfD may still fail as the subsequent voters will read the inactionable nom and ignore my comment, though... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 18 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, → Call me Hahc21 04:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/ redirect to Pump it Up. We don't need an independent article on this competition at playing the game. Candleabracadabra (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Vanden Bussche[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination. Five years later, it has become even more obvious that the title she won has not led to any notability. It didn't receive significant attention at the time, and none in the years since. WP:BIO1E applies, and WP:BIO in general. Not every beauty pageant is a notable event, not every pageant winner is notable, no matter if the contestants come from one or three countries (which are together smaller than most single countris anyway). There is a total lack of significant, reliable, independent sources about her, and that should be the deciding factor in the end. Fram (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person appears to have done nothing noteworthy, if DuckDuckGo.com is to be believed. She seems to be a negligible beauty contest winner who now works as a non-notable freelance journalist. I can't find any evidence of any notability. RomanSpa (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 16 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, → Call me Hahc21 04:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per noms. There is no article to show that Miss Benelux is in itself a notable pageant. Winning non-notable pageants does not confer notability in itself. Mabalu (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Leger[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being a TV anchorman is insufficient by itself. The only real coverage is about his fatal car accident. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some anchors of TV news outfits in large cities are notable, but I don't see that here. This article also has a risk for becoming a holder for details about his death, which is not necessary, and not a cause for notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:09, 23 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, → Call me Hahc21 04:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The purpose of a stub is to be a placeholder for an article about a NOTABLE item, not just an existing item. Arguments show that this fails notability the panda ₯’ 10:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twentythree Places[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I searched for "Twentythree Places" -wikipedia "Matt Wertz" I found these potential good hits. http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/TwentythreePlaces.asp and http://www.newreleasetuesday.com/albumdetail.php?album_id=1760 Neither have a staff review, so they do not help make the case. Nothing else even remotely approaching a RS in the first five Google pages. Clearly fails notability, but PROD was removed because, and I paraphrase, the subject was notable so the album must be as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The point of a stub is to indicate the presence of something, and propose to present and potential wikipedians that it ought to be developed further. Wertz's discography is worthy of being represented in its detail. There is plenty more available sources from which a more developed page could be written, but I just don't have the time myself for this, other than to have created the page with the infobox, cover and track listing. iTunes is a good spot too: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/twenty-three-places/id614751283 - There's also the notability that "Red Meets Blue" was re-recorded for "Under Summer Sun" when Wertz was signed to Razor and Tie or Universal or whatever label it was. --rm 'w a vu 01:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Wrong. Notability requires proof that the album is notable and we do not have to provide an article for non-notable subjects. Unless you can provide a source that proves that this album is notable then it must be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not pass GNG or MUSICBIO.HotHat (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete the panda ₯’ 10:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comcute[edit]

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

The topic does not seem to meet the notability requirement as explained by WP:GNG and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) guideline. Existing sources suggest that it is discussed only by its creators , in book chapters published by their employee (university); essentially self-published (I have a chapter published by a similar Polish university, and I know how that system works... for those kind of topics and low-key university presses, it is essentially self-publishing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the lack of discussion outside the project indicates the lack of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Fort ( short film)[edit]

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

Upcoming film by a non-notable movie company. No mention anywhere else except here and on Facebook. E Wing (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N/FILMS and WP:FUTURE. jonkerz ♠talk 13:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 13:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 13:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like it'd be neat, but there's just not anything out there to show notability at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zeus^u|c 23:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:NFF and is TOO SOON. Allow undeletion or recreation only if or when the film is released and gets enough independent coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Freeman (Francis Magalona album). Consensus is to redirect. Both parties to argue for that outcome agree on target the panda ₯’ 10:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three Stars and a Sun[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Indeed it is a common motif in Philippine-related officialdom, but no single source, including those cited in the article, covers the "three stars and a sun" as a topic in itself. Term only was only coined by a rapper named Francis Magalona, but no coverage before that. None of the writings of Emilio Aguinaldo, who supposedly designed it, cover the topic. Trying to look for "Tres estrellas y un sol" -wikipedia Filipinas in Google to see for Spanish-language sources only returns 8 hits. Probably because tres estrellas y un sol was a made-up translation by the author himself. 舎利弗 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Francis Magalona or to Flag of the Philippines. While the term hasn't really been covered in reliable sources, Francis Magalona had a song with that name, so the title could be a useful redirect to his article. Alternatively, should consensus here say so, another possible target page could be our article on the flag of the Philippines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of redirecting to Francis Magalona in case deletion fails to build consensus. 舎利弗 (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freeman (Francis Magalona album) instead since the song is at least discussed there (even though only in passing).--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. 舎利弗 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article on the album is a better target than Magalona's article, too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus based on arguments to delete. A note to nom: you nomination IS a !vote to delete - please do not !vote again as you did - twice. Those additional !votes are disruptive and have been ignored the panda ₯’ 10:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

The article should be deleted because the article was created on commercial basis. The article has a questionable sources with a poor reputation for checking the facts (WP:QS). For example, the sources 3, 4 and 6, 5, 7 do not contain any information about Sergei Vasiliev. The source 9 is non-authoritative. This source can be removed according to the rule WP:LIBEL. Also, the source 5 refers to a non-authoritative frankly Russian media and BLOG These sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. (WP:NTEMP) The sources 2 and 10 - independent of the subject. Only 1 has information about Sergei Vasiliev, but it's not enough. VolgaCamper (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like article refers only to unreliable resources and to resourses which do not include information about object. I see that other users refer to the same factor. Actually I do not understand why this article contains resourses which do not include information about object. I do not think that it is ok fir Wikipedia. 89.175.32.50 (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)— 89.175.32.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Snowball keep. Questionable sources is not a valid reason to delete a page. You do not demonstrate the alleged "commercial basis" upon which the article was created, and at any rate that is not a reason to delete a page either. Please ensure that you review WP:DELETE carefully before advancing a nomination.

Also, some sources do not contain mentions of the subject because they are used in the article to support statements on other entities, such as the Guild of Purveyors. As for the allegation of the unreliability of sources supporting the illegal allegation, that is best discussed on the talk page. The statement is not libellous unless the sources are demonstrably non-reliable. M. Caecilius (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see the commercial bias myself. Now, I agree reference 9 isn't reliable, but the topic doesn't read as commercially biased and other references aren't problematic. What is the evidence for it being created on a commercial basis? Reading the last delete request, it was just full of IPs saying delete and legitimate registered users saying keep. Indeed your account has been created only a few days before making this delete request. The entire thing is bizarre. JTdale ^Talk 15:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few days? So what? It does not forbidden, I believe. VolgaCamper (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Questionable sources, in my view, are the reason for deletion. We must regard the significance of the object, relying on general criteria. The criteria clearly point that need reliable sources which widely describe the object of the article. (WP:GNG - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list)

Accordingly, if the source is an unreliable and/or does not describe a person informatively as far as it's requires by the rules, the article must be deleted as inappropriate to the general criteria of significance. (WP:GNG - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material) VolgaCamper (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the vote above is a double made by the nominator. M. Caecilius (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the previous nomination, I have already gave my comments on each source. And I will write here again. First, materials from the official web site were used, they are not allowed to be taken into account according to the rules (2,10). In accordance with GNG, as I wrote in the previous nomination, sources where significant coverage of the event is made are necessary. Links number 3, 4 and 6 do not even mention Vasiliev. Link 9 is non-authoritative and unreliable, and so doesn't comply with the rules. The most interesting situations is with reference number 5. In addition, to the fact that there is not so much information about Vasiliev as required by the rules, the links refer to the various unreliable resources (non-authoritative Russian media, the editors of which are not even specified) and the blog of unknown Igolkin. References 7 and 8 contain the same text with not sufficient amount of data about Vasiliev and where just the situations about his scandal is described, what is obviously not enough to prove the significance. Just the link number 1 remains, however it provides little information about Vasiliev, moreover is written with a clear touch of slander. But still it's not the most important fact, because in accordance with the 3 note of GNG few reliable sources describing the subject of the article in details are necessary. I'm still waiting for the comments, I haven't received them the last time. 213.87.129.1 (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)— 213.87.129.1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I have nominated this article for deletion earlier. Nothing has changed - an article is biased and discredites Vasiliev's reputation. Numerous violations of the rules of Wikipedia are ignored. Knowledge of Russian allows me to conclude that most of these sources are unreliable, so I share the position of VolgaCamper about them. According to WP:ALIVE, the content of article should be edited from WP:NPV, now that core content policy is violated.Gdv777 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply marvellous, the amount of misunderstanding demonstrated of the policy based perhaps more on personal bias than on a desire to improve this encyclopaedia. What, shall we start our crusade on Wikipedia pages that contain some sources that some editors argue to be unreliable and summarily delete them? Has no one ever read the FAQ page?

It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.

What manner of editorial bias is there that has not been linked to outside sources? The sources could be biased, but you cannot simply argue that they are unreliable simply because "I know Russian!" Is this not, I ask, a cause to WP:BEBOLD and add into the article what you consider to be non-biased sources? I reiterate: Wikipedia does not delete pages because it refers to some outside sources, not patently unreliable (like a Facebook page or some sort of "anti-blah foundation"), which some editor believes to be biased. If we did, then you'll quickly see the number of pages drop down to some fraction of a percent of what we have right now. To suggest that we should do so is complete and blatant disregard for Wikipedia's policies and worries me a great deal, especially as many votes are made by IP addresses that are apparently single-purposed like [24] and [25] (possible sock/meatpuppet concerns too). I stand by my conviction that this nomination has been made in error, supported in error, and should be snowball closed as such. M. Caecilius (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dynamic IP, so it seems that this is my first edit in the discussion. In fact, I spoke in previous nomination. In addition, I have no relation to any of the participants of the discussion. As for the sources, they are unreliable, because their authors are non-authoritative in this issue. Who is Polina Popova, having published the article on Ground Report immediately after registration? Who is Igolkin, on whose blog refers Digital Journal? Bias in sources – is not the main reason to delete the article. The main reasons are the unreliability of the sources and lack of information about Vasiliev (not about the company) in them. 213.87.129.13 (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you appear to be a single-purposed account who is not here so much to build an encyclopaedia as you are to push your viewpoint on this topic. Speaking of the sources, if any allegation appear biased and not well-sourced, I re-re-iterate: why don't you WP:BEBOLD and go fix it, perhaps participating in a Talk Page discussion with other editors if they disagree? Calling for the deletion of the whole page because of a single statement you take issue with smacks of censorship, which I will not stand for. M. Caecilius (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s read what is written in the rules: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". Now let’s consider sources. 2 and 10 - independent of the subject. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 – nothing is written about Vasiliev. 9 - non-reliable sources. 8 – too few information about Vasiliev, moreover it’s a news article, we shouldn’t forget about WP:NTEMP. Only the link №1 remains, to few information about Vasiliev again, it's specified in WP:GNG that the presence of a few sources is required (see the third note). 213.87.132.117 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Albeit the author shouldn't matter in this, he's canvassed multiple admin's userpages in attempt to get this article deleted. Although my official argument is the general notability guideline. This meets that. Tutelary (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary: Please, explain, what do you see the correspondence of the article to the general notability guidence in? What sources given in the article are both reliable, independent and significantly cover the topic? VolgaCamper (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that being online, Tutelary can not answer my question. She has no counter-arguments. Ignoring questions looks very strange.

Firstly, the sources 3, 4 and 6, 5, 7 have no any information about Sergei Vasiliev. Secondly, the article about his biography. The sources 8 and 9 have some information, but the sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. (WP:NTEMP). The sources 2 and 10 - independent of the subject. Thirdly, as noted earlier, only 1 has information about Sergei Vasiliev, but it's not enough.

Also, the sources 8 and 9 do not only contradict the rule, but WP:GNG, because according to this rule need enough description of his personality to extract encyclopedic information about him. And 9 source also unreliable. VolgaCamper (talk) 19:09, 17 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A business man who owns a non-notable company and chairs a non-notable guild. He is in a legal battle with his non-notable business partner and is receipient of the Highest Public Award of the Russian Federation and the prestigious order badge from the Russian Orthodox Church. These are non-notable awards, as far as I can see. There is no article of him in the Russian language, and the article suffers from WP:O. An uncontroversial delete.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article should be deleted because the article does not comply with WP:GNG, because sources do not have enough full description of the person, and the sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. (WP:NTEMP) Also, in some sources there is no information at all. Only one source has some information, but it is not enough, it requires two or three reliable sources. It looks as though most of the article is an author's invention. VolgaCamper (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have never received the answers to my arguments. The sources do not meet the requirements that are described in WP:GNG. Delete. 213.87.133.223 (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This player seems to be the "victim" of discussion surrounding the professional standing of an entire league. When the article was created, it appears that consensus was that the league WAS professional. There still does not appear to be consensus that the league is NOT professional - include links provided below that show that it is. The issue surrounding the league should be resolved through RFC once-and-for-all before additional nominations on any of the players or teams in that league the panda ₯’ 10:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Masimov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted at AfD last month, and now recreated and nominated for CSD G4. There is talk page discussion that it should be kept (copied lower) and I think the notability may have changed between then an now. I thus opt for relisting at AfD. I consider myself neutral on the topic of deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per player had good season and just scored a goal in Azerbaijan Cup. How come articles like Connor Mahoney and Giorgio Rasulo exist, yet a player who played for country's top flight club shouldn't have his own article? Article meets WP:GNG standard.--Yacatisma 19:16, 22 May 2014 (copied from talk page)
Keep per Yacatisma.--Janavar (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC) (copied from talk page)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. Nothing has changed in the last four weeks. He's played a few more matches, but since the Azerbaijan Premier League is not confirmed as fully-pro, this does not confer notability under WP:NSPORT. The coverage he has received continues only to be routine sports journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Sir Sputnik, Azerbaijan Premier League is fully-pro, if you check this article.http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/azerbaijan_PFL_EPFL.htm and here is even membership link http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/profile_aze_pfl.htm --Yacatisma 04:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That source was considered and reject at the last discussion of the Azerbaijan Premier League at WT:FPL on the grounds that the membership criteria for the EPFL are ambiguous. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on ... you claimed it was ambiguous. No one agreed with you. It certainly wasn't rejected by anyone other than you. There was no clear consensus on that discussion. Nfitz (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:GNG and league is truly part of EPFL, so it does meet fully-pro.--NovaSkola (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --►Cekli 829 06:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --►Cekli 829 06:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per NovaSkola and Yacatisma. Samir Masimov notability people. --►Cekli 829 06:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --►Cekli 829 06:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - still fails both WP:GNG (due to lack of significant, third-party coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not appeared in a fully-professional league). His cup appearance is not enough, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments highlight the weakness of those wanting to keep. Giant Snowman 11:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman - No evidence of notability - Fails GNG + NFOOTBALL. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. The Azerbaijan Premier League's membership of EPFL does not mean it is fully-professional. Number 5 7 21:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG with an unusual amount of Russian and Azerbaijani media coverage [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. Also meets WP:NFOOTY as plays in fully professional league as per [33]. Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your last comment proves nothing. It has been repeatedly pointed out that membership of the EPFL does not mean a league is fully professional. Number 57 23:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Repeatedly? Go through the list of members. There's only a single member that's even somewhat debatable, and that's Azerbaijan. We've listed Azerbaijan as a fully-professional league for years until a few weeks ago. And yet, in all the discussion, no one has found any evidence that the league is not fully professional. If it walks like a duck ... Though given the article easily passes WP:GNG I don't know why the focus of the discussion has been on WP:NFOOTY of which there is a lack of consensus. Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, repeatedly. Have a look at the talk page archives of WP:FPL. And you are also being misleading in your claim about WP:NFOOTY. You and a small number of other editors don't like it, but my experience in the past several years is that most are in favour of it, even if it is because there is no better alternative. Number 57 00:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have a look at the talk page archives of WP:FPL. And you are also being misleading in your claim about WP:NFOOTY. There have not been years of discussion about Azerbaijan, nor has there been previous discussion about that reference. Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An article requires REFERENCES in order to establish and prove notability. It appears - based on reading - that this article *could* satisfy standards for inclusion. However, the complete lack of support ref's make it impossible to keep as a live article. Userfication, incubation or AFC are valid targets for this - but no editor has requested such as of this point. Consensus based on WP:V is therefore to delete at this time the panda ₯’ 10:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma Streetcar[edit]

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

Advocacy page with no references. JohnMcButts (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. It currently is as the nominator says, but that is not by itself a reason for deletion. The topic of streetcars in Tacoma is notable, and a neutral sourced article covering the historic system, its demise and the campaign for a replacement could easily be written based on a very quick google search for sources. Streetcars in Tacoma may be a better title for that article, but that is also not a reason to delete. Whether the current article would make a better start for that article than a blank slate is the key question here, and I think it would. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge delete this article and make some of it a section Tacoma Link, I see no reason to have two articles about trams in Tacoma, that violates WP:DUP. Perhaps the resulting article should be called "Streetcars in Tacoma" or something like that. AadaamS (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article stands, there is no WP:RS which establishes how this article lives up to WP:GNG, which is the article inclusion criteria that every article must meet. AadaamS (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources on the subject of "Tacoma Streetcar", the proper name, so there should be no article, or redirect Tacoma Streetcar. Titles like "streetcars in Tacoma" or even "Tacoma streetcars" could redirect to one or another Tacoma transit related subjects, but those are not the same as "Tacoma Streetcar", for which we have no sources to base an article, or even an article section, or even a single sentence, on. This article should have been speedy deleted as blatant advertising long ago. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve, but only if the "Tacoma Streetcar" is intended to be a separate heritage streetcar from the rest of Tacoma Link, as suggested in the article, such as McKinney Avenue Transit Authority which is affiliated with Dallas Area Rapid Transit, or Charlotte Trolley which is connected to the Lynx Rapid Transit Services. Otherwise, Merge to Tacoma Link, and add a whole section on it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough has been said. --do ncr am 02:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My view on editing needed, as given further comments by others, maybe not enough has been said: Tacoma Link is about the actual specific new streetcar line. It has a history section which provides some background, which should be shorter. The short section should have a "main"-type link to the Tacoma Streetcar article, which should be renamed to "Streetcars in Tacoma" or "Tacoma streetcars" or perhaps best "Public transportation in Tacoma". Let me call this "PtiT". The PtiT article should provide more background, about the really old history and about the movement to bring back streetcars, and should present briefly about the current Tacoma Link with a "main"-type link to the Tacoma Link article and it should be open to covering any other bus systems and train systems and subways, actual or proposed (with summaries of any such topics if there are articles about them, otherwise just some brief treatment). Note there are other goals of the modern streetcar movement beyond the one actual Tacoma Link line, and there is more history than is appropriate to put into the Tacoma Link article. The Tacoma streetcars lede should be changed, it should NOT say it is one specific proposal, as it is clearly more than that. The PtiT artictle is old history and relatively recent history of the movement and it is about multiple proposals. PtiT, the article currently up for AFD, is a notable subject as there will have been plenty written about it.

This PtiT article ought to be placed in Category:Public transportation in the United States and there ought to be overall Public Transportation articles about every metropolitan area. Currently there is Wikipedia treatment of bus lines alone, e.g. bus systems linked from List of bus transit systems in the United States, and for trains alone, and for ferries alone, but I don't see integrated Public transportation in REGION type articles.

Also, in both articles there will have been major, expensive studies commissioned as part of this public works process, and environmental reviews, and so on, which should be used as sources and cited. However it is clear enough to me that there must exist sources and that this already is clearly better handled in two articles than one. Hope this helps. --do ncr am 19:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is in fact a notable subject, could someone add a couple of citations to the article? It seems to be completely unsourced. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. If I were to delete every unsourced fact from this article, per WP:V, it would be a blank page. What exactly do the editors above want to keep? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please don't delete everything. Obviously the sections about the "City of Tacoma Streetcar Feasibility Committee" and the "Tacoma City Manager's Parking and Transit Plan" could/should include sourcing to plan documents and committee documents and/or newspaper reports about such. And given that a major public works project is going forward there must be lots of newspaper coverage based on environmental assessment reports and so on. I don't see any bad promotion (no business products are being advertised) and I don't see anything unbelievable in what is there. It is appropriate to call for sourcing at the Talk page and by approaching Tacoma-area editors, but blanking the article to make a point is not a good way forward. --do ncr am 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi doncram, the article must satisfy the WP:GNG to be a standalone article, there is no avoiding that. Accuracy or "believability" doesn't influence whether a subject is notable or not. The burden of general notability proof is on the editors who want to keep the article. A quick google on "Tacoma Streetcar" only turned up out of date articles (from 2002-2005 abouts) or self-published sources. This whole discussion isn't about the content of the article, it's about whether to keep the article. The 'Keep criterion is always the "subject satisfies the WP:GNG and this is verifiable". As it stands, the article fails these criteria. The burden of proof rests with he editors who want to keep the article to prove that it does satisfy the GNG. AadaamS (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move. This article is about two things at present: the historical operation of streetcars in Tacoma and a proposed vintage streetcar system distinct from Tacoma Link. The former topic is covered in the existing Tacoma Link article. The latter topic's notability isn't clear. I've located a feasibility analysis from 2007 prepared by the "City of Tacoma Streetcar Advisory Committee" which is very light on details. There's a news article from 2013 apparently discussing this study, or a related study. I'm not sure you can write a standalone article from these. Citizens groups proposing streetcar restorations aren't noteworthy without official backing. I think this article should be moved to Streetcars in Tacoma, Washington, covering both topics with a short reference to Tacoma Link. The current title is inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and under that specific and capitalised proper name too). This seems to be a scheme, like Bristol's Light Rail project, where one specific project within an overall public transport initiative for a city has gained notability on its own and a distinct proper name to refer to it. It may not ever happen. Tacoma will hopefully make some wise choices about expansion of its transport system, the streetcar project may or may not be part of that. it is however a defined and discussed topic in Tacoma. Sourcing needs cleanup, but a moment's searching shows that things are out there. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Historical Maps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable website. Fails both criteria of WP:WEB:

It is not sufficiently covered by outside sources. Several websites do make mention of the website as reference or as a sort of further reading recommendation, but none seems to cover the site itself. In other words, there are not enough third-party sources to write this article with or establish its notability.
It has not won any well-known, independent awards. In the first AfD of this article 5 years ago, one user makes mention of the website winning the "Internet Resource of the Month" award from GEO World. Neither GEO World nor the monthly award are notable themselves. 舎利弗 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per reasons one and two, and the fact that it is a non-notable website, just like most sites. United States Man (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per due article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notablity standards.--Yacatisma (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the absence of any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, basic notability does not appear to have been established. --DAJF (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Aid[edit]

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

Wholly negative BLP about a person who apparently ran a website (article also included in this AFD) that was found guilty of fraud totaling less than €20K. Only sources are in Estonian but they are written by the same journalist in the same newspaper (the only one that is not no longer exists). Neither the person nor the business nor the "crime" meet the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm tempted to say that we should just speedy the main article because it does read like it was made as an attack page against the woman. I am finding some coverage such as this story, but it's mostly about the crime. So far I don't see where we need two articles as a whole, to be certain. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I'd initially found one or two news links, but that seems to be it for the most part. I am fairly aware that most English language search engines do not bring up every result that's out there, but there is a pretty distinct lack of coverage overall. From what I can gather, the website got very little coverage and the woman herself only got coverage in relation to some charges brought against her. She was found guilty, but as a whole it doesn't seem to have received enough coverage to where the crime itself would be enough to keep the article. I'd actually recommend speedying the main article because it comes across as an attack page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought but it seemed rather underhanded given how long they've existed. On the other hand the creator hasn't edited since 2009, so there's that. If another admin wants to do the honors on both of them, I'm jiggy. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I can see your point. Do you want to try tagging them and seeing if anyone would be willing to do it? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very weak delete. While the merger of those articles would certainly be notable (plenty of coverage in the biggest daily newspaper of Estonia, more sources readily available), this tends be WP:NOTNEWS area. --Sander Säde 16:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The list as currently published includes songs that *are* and are *not* about rain. As argued below, the inclusion of the word "rain" in a title or lyric may or may not be a literal use of the word "rain". The title itself is therefore open to too much possible interpretation - after all is Riders on the Storm a song about rain? The arguments therefore show that the list is unmanageable in its ability to appropriately discern between songs truly about rain, songs with rain in the title, songs with rain as a simile, and on top of that songs about storms of the rain variety but don't include the word rain predominantly. Therefore, as a wholly undefinable and unmanageable list, it cannot meet WP:LISTN the panda ₯’ 11:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about rain[edit]

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

WP:Trivia. Song lyrics extensively use Simile, Metaphor, Allegory, Alliteration (sometimes words are added just because they sound nice), and every other literary and poetic device known. Sometimes a song’s meaning could be as plain as day, sometimes it is so obscure that it is possible not even the songwriter understand what the meaning is! This "list" recognises this by adding, quite blatently, "Other songs with "rain" in the title" In the very recently closed as delete, CfD for songs about rain one editor wrote, For just two other examples of the problem, "Don't Rain on My Parade" and "Set Fire to the Rain" have been included here, even though they both use the word "rain" only metaphorically, and are in no meaningful way about rain per se. Richhoncho (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not worthy of its own article. 舎利弗 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What next ? "List of songs about sun" or "List of songs about snow" ? ... Utterly pointless article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN. The nomination misunderstands WP:TRIVIA which has nothing to do with topics being unimportant. Some songs about the rain are actually quite important to their cultures - see Song of the Rain Ceremony, for example. Andrew (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Songs 'about rain' which are important to a culture might possibly merit discussion - in the context of an article about the relevant culture. A decontextualising list is trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@舎利弗: @Davey2010: @AndyTheGrump: please take another look now that I have had time to add grounds for notability, from the very extensive media coverage on the topic of songs about rain. – Fayenatic London 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fayenatic london: - Thanks for making the effort in improving the article but I still believe listing songs to do with rain is imho pointless .... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination was extremely hasty; the nominator left me a note in which he states that he assumes I was joking, but in that case I would have cheerfully deleted it myself under WP:G7, as the deleted page would still serve for admins as a handy record of the former category contents, pending a promised centralized discussion on categories for songs by topic. I was intending to review the remaining songs to see what else from the original list was not really about rain; that was the point of splitting the list with a section heading "Other songs with rain in the title", to demonstrate that these had not been forgotten, then split the list into two, and delete that section. However, on a cursory look around the internet, "songs about rain" turns out to be a notable and well-covered topic, and some songs which I added into that section are included in the independently-published lists. Well, unlike a category, a list can add commentary to indicate the nature of the song. – Fayenatic London 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the centralized discussion: the nominator's comments in the CFD appeared to commit to starting this, and I spent some time looking for it before closing the discussion. After giving a bogus link, he has now stated on my talk page that he intended to do this after the CFD was closed, but that was not clear. – Fayenatic London 19:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather have an article about Rain in songs or Rain in literature, rather than an arbitrary list. If it can be established that there is enough coverage on the topic of rain in songs—that is those sources extensively talk about the influence of rain in songs, as opposed to making a list of songs that mention rain—I will gladly change my opinion. 舎利弗 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:LISTN, the list topic itself has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources:

"30 great songs about rain". Daily Telegraph. February 2014. Retrieved 23 May 2014.
Andrew Abramson (14 June 2011). "20 Greatest "Rain" Songs of All Time (to stop the drought)". Retrieved 23 May 2014.
Matthew T. Hall (28 February 2014). "22 best and 3 worst rain songs of all time". San Diego Union-Tribune.
Omer Ali (20 Feb 2014). "The 10 best pop songs about rain". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 23 May 2014.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Northamerica1000 suggested the lists themselves may be notable, but that does not pass down to each and every song that uses the word "rain" in the lyrics or title. nor does it support WP creating such lists WP:NOTINHERITED. The references that are there only confirm the song has been included in such a list, not that the song is about rain. We have a serious WP:OR problem. You could suggest that the article title was changed to "Songs included in lists of songs about rain." That would be alright (but not necessarily of any use!). There is a suggestion that "Some songs about the rain are actually quite important to their cultures" and I certainly agree with that and would like to see that article, but this is not and never will be that article. The core problem with "Lists about XXX" is what constitutes a song to be about rain - and as you can see from my table below (extracted from those listed as "Songs on the topic of rain" all but two fail the criteria of "being about rain"

Song	From Article	My comment/part lyrics
Another Fucking Song About the Rain	Nothing	Link through to album, could be an instrumental piece for all the information supplied.
Biga Oneun Naren	The song was actually recorded on an actual rainy day in order to further accentuate the feeling of sorrow emphasized in the song	No confirmation the song is about “rain”
Come Rain or Come Shine	Nothing	The lyrics start, “I'm gonna love you like nobody's loved you come rain or come shine, High as a mountain and deep as a river come rain or come shine...” So it’s about mountains and rivers too?
Endless Rain	Nothing
Hare Ame Nochi Suki	Nothing
Here Comes the Rain Again	its melancholy lyrics draw a comparison between the painful and tragic feelings of unrequited love with falling rain	As it says, it’s a simile, not about rain at all.
It's Gonna Rain!	Nothing	Japanese lyrics so I can’t comment.
November Rain	Nothing	Lyrics read, “Nothing lasts forever And we both know hearts can change And it's hard to hold a candle In the cold November rain” So again, not about rain.
Rain(Beatles song)	"I've never seen rain as hard as that, except in Tahiti", and later explained that "Rain" was "about people moaning about the weather all the time". Another interpretation is that the songs "Rain" and "Sun" are phenomena experienced during a benign LSD trip.	It is probably about rain, or as ever, about something else?
Rain (Yui song)	The video eventually ends with an image of hope for the future, with the lyrics: "When someday this rain turns to snow / And slowly consumes this sadness / I'll be greeted by new hope	So it’s about hope, not rain.
Rain Is Fallin'/Hybrid Dream	Nothing	Lyrics are, “I gotta feelin' that this could be the night Wow-wow, wow-wow, yeah-yeah-yeah, Rain is fallin' over you & me.” I could be wrong, but I think I have found a simile.
The Rain Song	Nothing	First line of lyrics are, “This is the springtime of my loving - the second season I am to know” and the last line is “This is the mystery of the quotient - Upon us all a little rain must fall.” Definately not about rain. A metaphor? A simile?
Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head	Nothing	It’s about hope and change, “those raindrops ain’t worrying me”
Rainy Days Never Stays	Nothing	Part lyrics read, “"Raining all day" has gone away Like that summer My dream...be with me, and I'll find it”
Singin' in the Rain	Nothing	Lyrics read “I'm singing in the rain Just singing in the rain What a glorious feelin' I'm happy again”
Spring Rain	Nothing	If somebody want so check this one out, I couldn’t find it.
Why Does It Always Rain on Me?	Eilat... The city is known for its hot weather even during winter time, but surprisingly it began to rain for two days during his (writer) stay	Part lyric is “Why does it always rain on me? Is it because I lied when I was seventeen?” Another metaphor, a simile perhaps?
Didn't It Rain	Nothing	Ok, it’s about Noah and his flood,
Rhythm of the Rain	The lyrics are sung by a man who wishes the rain would stop falling and reminding him of the error of his ways, and to let him cry alone, as his lover has left him.	It’s about lost love again.

--Richhoncho (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of exhibitions of the Bruce Silverstein Gallery[edit]

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

I understand (and appreciate) the rationale for the creation of this list: it is to make the parent article more than just a laundry list of exhibitions. However, I think this kind of content, even if (mostly) verified, is excessive information, and it shouldn't be in the main article anyway. After all, we are not a directory or a brochure. With apologies. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's fine with me, Dr M, no need to apologise. And I agree that this is not the sort of content we should have; what next, a List of special offers at Walmart? As you have rightly guessed, I hived it off to get it out of the COI mess that is/was the main article. It had enough references even after I'd removed the self-published ones that I felt uncomfortable about simply deleting it outright. But I've no objection to it being summarily consigned to oblivion. Hmm, I don't think I can request speedy deletion as G7 because the content was not written by me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of these exhibition listings are unreferenced. If the gallery itself is notable (I express no opinion on that), then a much briefer, referenced list of representative exhibitions would be OK for the main article, to give readers a sense of the range of works shown by the gallery. I see no good reason for this fork. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDoesn't seem encyclopedic, after all. Zince34' 08:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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