< 15 November	17 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ISNA Canada~~ "keep and move" or "merge into the newly-created article, as has already been done". Yeah, that's incredibly cryptic. Please see User_talk:RoySmith#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FIslamic_Society_of_North_America_Elementary_School for a discussion on what's going on (and feel free to comment there). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Society of North America Elementary School[edit]

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

This elementary school does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with refocus and possible re-titling/move of article. This is apparently the only Wikipedia webpage on ISNA Canada, which is apparently distinct from the clearly notable Islamic Society of North America that is based in the U.S. The Canadian organization is controversial: ""Islamic group's charitable status revoked over alleged link to terror organization"! The Canadian organization is separate, as evidenced in Toronto Sun news coverage of the Canadian's loss of tax-exempt status, in this news article linked from the ISNA wikipedia article, in which the U.S. group disavows connection to the Canadian group. The Canadian group's webpage, http://www.isna.ca, seems to indicate the organization is pretty much centered at the school. And it is also asserted in the article that this is "one of the oldest" Islamic schools in Toronto area, an assertion of notability. So, I think the current article should be broadened a bit to be about the Canadian group, and not just its school, and, as the broader topic, it is clearly notable. --doncram 18:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A claim that something is merely "One of the oldest Xs in CityY" does not satisfy WP:N or WP:ORG. You seem to be suggesting a change of this article about a school to an article about the organization, which would require a complete rewrite. Perhaps this article about a nonnotable elementary school should be redirected to a stub article about the sponsoring organization. Edison (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: I have considerably revised the article (i guess i did that "complete rewrite" requested by Edison), to make it about the ISNA Canada organization, which operates the ISNA Elementary School (now a section in the article), the ISNA High School (another section), and other programs. As revised, the article is now a slam-dunk KEEP, in my view: it is a combo article about a major organization that has controversy (alleged support of a terrorist organization, meets wp:GNG), its high school (notable on its own automatically by longstanding precedent at Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) that all high schools are wikipedia-notable), and its elementary school which is probably notable on its own, too (though this last is not proven yet, i agree). So, anyhow, obvious KEEP now. --do ncr am 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S.: My intention is that the article should be moved to ISNA Canada, currently a redirect that I set up, upon completion of the AFD. The AFD directions advise against moving an article during ongoing AFD. The following currently redirect to the article: ISNA Canada, ISNA-Canada, ISNA Elementary School, ISNA High School, and Islamic Centre of Canada. --do ncr am 21:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, sources likely available at:
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  - --do ncr am 22:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator, I have no objection to moving the article to a new title reflecting that it is now, after Doncram's rewrite, about the organization rather than the elementary school. There could be a redirect from the elementary school name to the organization article. I don't care whether the AFD is allowed to run its time or is closed early.Edison (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. Per that statement by the nominator, there remain no delete votes, so a speedy close by admin or non-admin is possible, or the AFD time can be run out. --do ncr am 15:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PBP Worldmeeting[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can often look past spamminess/promotion in articles if the subject passes notability guidelines, but in my searches all I found were trade-show listings and other non-in-depth coverage, so I don't think this gets over the bar. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I support the above points. In short this is an inclusive activity of one branch of science, rather industry, of limited perspective and coverage, with no significant outcome to the rest of the world (even if there is, there's no mention); hence not significant at all. Chhandama (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar ⨹ 19:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patan Academy of Health Sciences[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does appear to be an accredited degree-awarding institution, which we invariably keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a degree awarding institution of higher education. Copyediting is the solution to the observed problems with the article, not deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its an accredited school that gives degrees, so it should be kept. This article needs to be edited to address its promotional problems, but this is not grounds for deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - Academy's are deemed notable, I'll admit it definitely needs work doing but that can be fixed anyday .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now. It was one massive copyright violation, but I believe I have removed all of the copyrighted material and the promotional tone. There is not much left, but an article can be built on what remains. I am One of Many (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purewal[edit]

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

unreferenced unclear notability Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability and is mostly OR. A link to the Hindi article shows no evidence of notability there either--Mevagiss (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 22:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Basheed[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, in my opinion it does not pass WP:NOTABILITY did not nominate as speedy WP:A7 to generate debate and give creator some extra time to establish it. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Subject is not notable and sources provided are self-published. The promotional tone can easily be fixed but I still think it lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a mess, but this director clearly has been the topic of coverage in notable secondary sources, on a variety of topics (see list below):

The article will require significant cleanup, though, but that is no ground for deletion.--Reinoutr (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage found by Reinoutr isn't what I'd call significant (and one isn't even relevant to his being a director). In fact, it's the sort of coverage I'd expect for an unsuccessful director who hasn't yet achieved notability in his career. WP:NACTOR could apply to directors too. It is WP:TOOSOON to have an article on him. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Curphy[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial independent sources. reddogsix (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this page is really intended to neutrally present a notable US leadership reasearcher and I don't understand why it has been tagged for deletion again. It surely is a very basic page but one has to begin somehow. As for more resources/references, I will update them later and hopefully more people will join me in improving the quality of this entry. There are definitely many connections between Gordon Curphy and other Wikipedia entries that can be harnessed. Rastoduris (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rastoduris Can you provide indication of at least a few reliable sources? I did a search and could only find links to his books for sale, and his own sites. Unless there is evidence that reliable sources exist, I will have to vote to delete. LaMona (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He gets some hits at Google News and Google Scholar, but I'm not really very familiar with WP:PROF or identifying notability of professors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources on him, well at least for the claim of notability in the article. In Newspapers.com, the are articles establishing that he was a pretty good college hockey player. He is not a prof, so WP:PROF doesn't apply. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I must have gotten confused with a different AfD or something. He does have a decent number of hits on Google Scholar, though. I'm not really in the mood to pour through all those results, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also tried to locate decent sources, but couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. I do not exclude the possiblity that the person is notable, but in absence of those, the topic fails the WP inclusion criteria. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 18:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acc u-19 premier 2014[edit]

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

Non-notable under-19 cricket tournament, which fails the WP:CRIN inclusion guideline for under-19 cricket. Typically only the under-19 cricket world cup is considered notable per inclusion guidelines. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not currently any evidence of notability--Mevagiss (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Walter[edit]

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

This person doesn't meet the notability guidelines for authors or the general notability guidelines. Rotten regard 22:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment - A few paragraphs share wording verbatim with the Amazon link in the article. I know that other sources sometimes use Wikipedia material, but I didn't think that Amazon was one. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 01:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've taken out all of the promotional and copyvio type material... which has pretty much decimated it to a stub. If anyone wants to see the original version, you can see it here. Now I did a search and other than a few press releases, there is very little out there about her. I think that the KPHO source is the only really reliable source out there. Everything else is mostly primary sources, junk hits, and places that are obviously unusable as a RS. The article in its original state alleges that the book was controversial, but the thing is that I can't find where anyone really paid any attention to this book's release in the slightest. The only person who really seems to be talking about Amber Walter... is Amber Walter. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no trace of her books other than the first one, which was self published (Penman Press). She is not listed, however, on their author pages. [1]. I did find a press release from the publisher (undated) saying that she would write two more books "by April" [2]. And to think that some authors spend YEARS on a single book ;-). LaMona (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sweeps turn up nada, US news, international, entertainment-related, subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see much, either. Besides the aforementioned KPHO story, just press releases and social media. We need more than a single local news story. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Duffy (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete No top tier MMA fights and no significant coverage. Not likely to get top tier fights after a 3 year layoff.Mdtemp (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. He doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights and he doesn't meet WP:GNG with only routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Webdriver Torso[edit]

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

does a YouTube account meet WP:NWEB just because it posts these simple videos with blue and red rectangles? It does appear to be covered on several internet news forums and newspapers, but may fail the "Presumed" guideline of WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article should be deleted, because what if someone wants lots of information about the subject? ApparatumLover 22:34 PM, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Keep, as per the general notability guideline; there's a hell of a lot of pretty in-depth coverage out there - [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A short-term fad, at least at this point, about a single youtube video that went viral. Newspapers and other sources pick up these stories because they are click-bait. Check back in five years and see if the video is still considered significant. And to ApparatumLover, if someone wants more info about it, they can Google it the same way we did. LaMona (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If someone Googles the subject, they will find most of the information in this article, but not all of it. This article contains extra, hard-to-find info about the YouTube channel. ApparatumLover 01:25 PM, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep, I see plenty of significant coverage in the sources provided by Dylanfromthenorth. LaMona, notability is not temporary. If it's notable now, it'll still be notable in five years. Furthermore, the nominator's rationale essentially boils down to "not notable because it sounds stupid" and doesn't explain any other reason why the GNG doesn't apply here. --Jakob (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of in-depth reliable sources as noted above to establish WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please, notice that although the article presents the topic as a YouTube account, the real topic here is the Internet phenomenon that the account became after people noticed these (hundreds of thousands of) strange and mysterious videos and started speculating about their nature and purpose. The mystery became popular enough to motivate several reliable secondary sources to write articles about it and these sources, already cited in this AfD discussion and in the article itself, make the topic notable as per WP:GNG. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 15:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to extensive coverage by secondary sources. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A2. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook shqip[edit]

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

Article written in Albanian appears to be about the Albanian Facebook. I don't know how to move or merge a page to another language, though I do believe this page here ought to be deleted. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It can be deleted under WP:A2. I'm adding a speedy deletion tag. cyberdog958^Talk 23:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as it's basically Facebook just shorter and in another language .–Davey2010 • (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar ⨹ 19:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electrochemical and Solid State Letters[edit]

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

Non-notable scientific journal. Only source is to its website. Results on Google cannot establish notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs work, but journal has a decent impact factor and being listed in the Science Citation Index and the Journal Citation Reports is a clear pass of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Presence in selective journal databases shows notability per the criteria in WP:NJournals. --Mark viking (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies NJournals. James500 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Boulanger[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. One apparently non notable book by an author who does not appear to be otherwise notable. Additionally, notability is not inherited. Safiel (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nomination Monte Boulanger which, prior to my redirecting it, was identical to the main article. Monte is the real given name of the subject while Alex is a pen name. Safiel (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No evidence of notability. Poorly or improperly sourced BLP content removed per BLP policy. The two sources are 1)a dead link supposedly to a primary source and 2) a irrelevant mention of a supposed relative with no evidence of purported relationship. Editor asserting original authorship and identifying as the subject requests deletion. I am reposting speedy tag. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to Speedy delete Conditions of A7 not satisfied. No indication that any private information was disclosed. The objecting user/author/subject needs to take his objections to the BLP noticeboard for an administrator to review. Article does NOT meet the requirements for removal by author and nobody has the right to demand removal of content from Wikipedia, unless it is clearly shown to be an invasion of privacy and again that determination needs to be made at the BLP noticeboard. Again, I object to speedy deletion but support deletion under the regular process for the reasons I gave above. Safiel (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete both. Monte Boulanger and Alex Boulanger appear to be attempts at self promotion and there is very little in the way of biographical information on the subject of the article. In any event there should be only one article per person. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I objected to the use of speedy deletion but I am in favor of deletion going through the AfD process. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this AfD is in process, perhaps speedy isn't the way to go. Whatever an experienced admin decides is fine with me. Unsourced or poorly sourced BLP content is subject to immediate removal, going to BLPN is not required by policy quite the opposite. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the speedy, because it will be better decided here. I was able to confirm the existence of the book in WorldCat but it is held in only one library. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I don't see how this author even comes closing to passing WP:AUTHOR. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly fails AUTHOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an author, his book is pretty non-notable, as I can't see where it's been covered or reviewed in any places that would be considered reliable sources per Wikipedia. When it comes to the other stuff, his relation to Ernest Tubb doesn't do anything since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and his position on the Board of Directors doesn't really do anything for notability either. He's just not notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Caputo (hockey)[edit]

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

Only two sources, both of questionable reliability and neither independent of the subject, so notability is not established. : Noyster (talk), 20:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a tough one to research. Even searching on the Australian Google for "John Caputo" + hockey turned up hits for a Massachusetts high school coach and a current Div III college player. Over in Australia, the search term is fouled by a political fundraiser by the same name in a recent scandal, where another actor is the New South Wales state treasurer, whose surname is Hockey. (Seriously.) For this fellow, though, all I've found is that he's a real estate broker in Perth. That the article's been worked on by three SPAs for whom this is the sole Wikipedia activity, the degree to which it's promotional cheerleading, the complete lack of reliable sources, the fact that it's a BLP, and that no presumptive notability is conferred on Australian hockey players, this is an easy Delete. Ravenswing 01:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be almost completely unsourced original research. CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is John Caputo from Perth Western Australia www.caputo.com.au / www.caputoactivitybooks.com.au not the John Caputo from NSW who was caught up in the political scandal whom you have mentioned - two different characters years apart in age. The Current President Paul MCcann paul.mccann@westnet.com.au 0408 366 015 of the Perth Western Australia Ice hockey League www.icewa.com.au will verify and update John P Caputo's contribution and success to the Sport of Ice Hockey & In line Hockey very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternityisreal (talk • contribs)

Comment: Unfortunately, that's not likely to be sufficient to save the article. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for whether an athlete is notable enough to merit an article are what counts. The pertinent rule is WP:NHOCKEY, which would accord Caputo presumptive notability only if he'd played in the Olympics (Australia competed in ice hockey in the Olympics only once, in 1960) or in the Championship division of the World Championships (which Australia never has). In any event, according to Ice Hockey Australia's listings, Caputo never has played for the national team. As per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, our league assessment rule, Australian professional hockey is not considered noteworthy enough for presumptive notability. Neither does, according to the Sports Wikiproject, inline hockey play confer notability.
That leaves WP:GNG, which holds that a subject who has received "significant coverage" in multiple, reliable, independent, third-party sources is considered notable. Should several links to newspaper interviews with Mr. Caputo be presented -- and I couldn't find a single one -- that's what it would take. Mr. Mccann's good offices notwithstanding, Wikipedia articles are based on verifiable evidence, not on someone vouching for the subject. Ravenswing 20:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is the editor for John Caputo (hockey) article. I have added another source. Is this one okay with you now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EWEshaw (talk • contribs)

Not to sustain notability, no; especially since following the link, it's an unpublished book. What we're looking for by way of sources is for Caputo to have been discussed in "significant detail" -- is there a feature article on him in The West Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald, for instance? If you're looking to pass WP:AUTHOR, has he written any bestsellers or had a book be made into a feature film? We've posted a few links already pointing to various guideline for notability, and I urge you to look them over before proceeding. Ravenswing 03:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We contacted the president of the Australian Ice Hockey association, Clive Connelly. He noted they only started recording the players names that represented Australia & participated in the In-line Hockey World Championships since 2004. Otherwise we would be able to link John Caputo to the 2000 in-line hockey team that he participated in. We are in the process of collecting all the players names. Once done maybe then you will see that this entry is valid and worthy of noting.

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ten days now after this was filed, and the only dissenters are (presumably) Mr. Caputo himself and another SPA, neither of whom have been able to provide a single valid, reliable source supporting notability. High time to close. Ravenswing 05:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ignoring the SPAs on both sides (Pastapimp, Sadfatandalone, and Sindanda), there is a solid consensus to delete, thanks to the detailed analysis of Lukeno94. Randykitty (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schooley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about an actress whose roles are largely uncredited and completely unsourced. The only reference appears to be a link to a personal website. A quick google search turns up nothing. This article is a clear case of failing WP:GNG and the article seems to be entirely original research. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nom Upon further investigation it turns out this article was ruled to be deleted in the previous AfD ~~but it appears to never have actually been deleted~~. This is exceptionally strange and warrants some investigation. Actually it seems it was, nomed for speedy per G4.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is substantially different to the one present at the previous AfD event, which a gap of 3 years between deletion and recreation would imply a large chance of there being, then it isn't technically a G4 candidate. As to the merits of the subject of the article, all I can seem to find is an incredibly nasty Tumblr/Wordpress/Facebook row between her and some other parties, which I have no intention of going into. None of the films or series she has acted in appear to be of any real note, bar four of them. Now, I'm going to disregard what the article says right now about those roles, because it seems that, quite frankly, someone with a grudge against Schooley has edited this article and removed any remote sign of importance. I would strongly urge anyone reviewing this to do exactly the same (although I have reverted in the valid filmography section). So, what are we left with? Let's start with the web series "Clutch", where she is credited as playing the role of Michelle. I'm not convinced this web series is that notable, and even if it is, I'm not seeing how Schooley's character is particularly notable. "Hot Football Fan" is not going to be a major role in The Dark Knight Rises, assuming that is even legitimate. The role in Small Town Murder Songs also appears to be very minor, as does the one in Being Erica. Her being the main voiceover actress in a minor game is not really doing much for her either. Looking through the version prior to the gutting, I see only a few references that are potentially valid for notability; one is a local paper, Schooley is only mentioned once here, and everything else is either very dubious, obviously no good (IMDB, blogs) or simply doesn't contribute to notability. So, Delete... and I hope this AfD doesn't go the way of the previous one. (Also, sorry for using lots of words, but this mess does need some in-depth analysis!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is not unusual for a subject to gain notability over the course of 4 years, which was when the previous AfD took place. 12k Google hits [11] is not "nothing", and the nominator does not explain why they find the 25+ sources already in the article insufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Overall this appears to be an embarrassingly ill-considered nomination by Winner 42, who probably should exercise more diligence in the future. VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GHits are not a sign of notability. I get 1k hits on my own name via that search method, and I've never done anything of note. I'm also strongly doubting that you've checked the sources yourself; they're all either primary, unreliable, local, or passing mentions of this person; sometimes a combination of these. Feel free to show me which sources are reliable AND in-depth on this person that are in the article though, and I may reconsider my !vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukeno94: I see several interviews in the list of sources. I agree at GHits are not a good reason for keeping, but the nominator implied there was one source and stated that Google turned up "nothing." An incompetent nom needs to be called out as such. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those interviews are generally not from sources that appear to be reliable to me (The Mind Reels, which is a Wordpress blog, and FilmSnobbery is designed specifically as a promotion tool from what I can see; nothing on that page actually appears to work either, so it fails the verifiability test), do not appear to actually exist (Rogue Cinema), or are local sources (Today's Toronto). The nominator clearly judged the article as it stood, where it definitely did have nothing bar one source, and I also agree that Google really doesn't turn up anything valid, although it may do a few pages in. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for not reading past the first vandal edit before nominating the article for AfD, this was my mistake but perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Assume good faith before continuing. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I violate that policy? VQuakr (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I didn't realize you could make your own Wikipedia page with made up credits. Did she appear in those films? Yes, but as an uncredited extra with no lines. This is insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastapimp (talk • contribs)

What evidence do you have to claim this is an autobiography? Please do not reply if the reply would violate WP:OUTING. VQuakr (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that her role in the one notable web series is very easy to verify; thus, the rest of Pastapimp's edits here are questionable to say the least, particularly as they are, so far, a SPA. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems likely to have been created by a WP:SPA based on the history of the creator but that is not necessarily a reason to delete it. Neither is the fact that there was an AfD several years ago - a subject can become notable over time. However, this subject seems to easily fail WP:NACTOR with insignificant roles, and there do not seem to be any WP:RS that establish notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Someone with a grudge against this actor seems to have blanked many of their roles out before nominating this article. "Motives and Murders" is an Investigation Discovery show (the Discovery Network is pretty big). "Black Eve" has been released on DVD and online for distribution, and Emily is mentioned in several horror press articles regarding that film. The Charlebois Post is a major site for Canadian theatre reviews. She's also listed as a notable guest at the Polaris convention, as per their own Wiki entry. The Mind Reels apparently recently went for a world record, interviewing many actors from bigger-named shows. The Mind Reels Guiness Record. A-list, no, but notable yes. 206.248.161.195 (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did not do the blanking; not disputing the fact that someone has a grudge against this woman, however. The several horror press articles appear to be mostly from unreliable sources; blogs, websites of very dubious reliability, or press releases. Barbara Zanter does not appear to be a notable character within that show, and Black Eve being released on DVD and online doesn't make it notable. Not seeing how relevant the Mind Reels' Guinness World Record attempt is. The Charlebois Post doesn't do any more than name-drop Schooley, and besides, that's a blog piece anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have updated the main article to show that even IMDb lists her as preforming in the listed items, The Ticket (2009) being an example of this. In respect to the the actresses notability; Wikipedia is not a collection of the rich and famous with a notability requirement for entry. It is a collection of the collective knowledge of the internet. Unless someone can prove she was not part of the listed performances than it matter little if she was the lead role or the person holding the tree. Wikipedia is also not the place to wage personal issues or distastes. If you do not like her work do not watch it or read about it. So long as the information here is legal and is not in conflict with copyright laws and is not misleading or containing demeaning content, then it has no reason to be deleted. Sindanda (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have a personal wikipedia page? No. Because I havn't done anything note worthy. Either has this person. The entire thing is a joke. --Pastapimp (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, do not modify another's entry. If you disagree with me, that is fine and expressing that is encouraged but do not modify another's post. I have removes your strike out.

Second, if you have done work in the arts or another field and it can be confirmed, as hers can, then yes you can have a page to list that. Wikipedia is clear that it does not support abusive behavior and for one user to say that your opinion of her level of notirity is grounds or deletion is abusive.

Thirdly she must be of some notoriety to attract your attention. In the revision history your name mr. Pastapimp shows up a lot and in this open discussion you've altered my own post. For this reason I am opening a request for review on your actions. Sindanda (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's actually explain what happened here; User:Sindanda, who made the !vote above, did not sign their comment correctly (you need to use four tildes, not three), and then Pastapimp went in and appeared to add their own signature into the !vote. This is the state I saw it in, and, given Pastapimp's behaviour, went and struck the !vote as appearing to be both a duplicate vote, and a violation of WP:POINT. I apologize for that error, but Sindanda, please make sure you sign your posts correctly in future (I've fixed them now). I should also note that Sindanda is, right now, a SPA as well, whom I've just had to revert on the Schooley article after they made a mess with policy-violating and wikilink breaking edits. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually such a joke. Sindanda is obviously the subject making her own wikipedia page. There is no trolling. I just don't understand how someone who has no notoriety can have a Wikipedia page. --Pastapimp (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pastapimp, why do you keep wasting time slandering this actress, who clearly has fans and a following of her work? Sadfatandalone (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of that, and nor do I necessarily agree that it is the case. Even minor actresses and actors can have their fans. Also, "notoriety" is not required for someone to have a Wikipedia page; notability is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again I fear this conversation is more personal than constructive to the propose of this conversation. That said false accusations are never good. Now I know their is no requirement for this and I do not have to do this but my name is Carlos Manuel Comes DA Costa. I live in kitchener Ontario and because I'm doing full disclosure here,I have both seen Emilys work and even used her editing company for some of my own work. Now to then point of this article. There is ample evidence, confirmable evidence, of her work. If there is an issue with one of her claims than the should be addressed with an appropriate edit not a page deletion. Sindanda (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Luke's assessment of the article. The subject of article has performed in quite a few, but mostly minor, roles. There is little (real) coverage by secondary sources. Most links included are reviews or mentions of the films in which she had a role, sometimes not even listing her as one of the actors. Currently, I'd say there is no case for inclusion on WP, so I vote delete. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sources to show notability; but with reluctance because of the sheer coolness of this being "Hot Football Fan" (uncredited) in The Dark Knight Rises. I hope she soon has notability enough to be an obvious keep. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Jones[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, the page does not appear to meet GNG or ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 17:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an unreferenced biography of a living person, policy requires deletion. I will reconsider in the unlikely case that references showing significant coverage in reliable, independent sources are added to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would put him over the bar of the general notability guideline; only very brief mentions, and the odd quote from him in some news reports about local radio. If it gets deleted then Keri Jones (rugby) should probably be moved here, since he'll then be the only Keri Jones in the village. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Peck[edit]

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

This was successfully proposed for deletion on 29th July 2009. I don't see further evidence of meeting WP:BIO, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. I'm also concerned as to whether this is promotion as this was created by an WP:SPA, but that isn't directly relevant to the subject's notability, just an added concern. Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any RS about him. The references are mostly blog posts. The AdAge article mentions him but isn't about him. I get zero hits in NYTimes and WSJ.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:08, 9 November 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 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at all of the references that I could stand to. Here goes: #1 a live blog that he blogged - not about him #2 He is listed as one of 100 "movers and shakers" #3 A twitter meetup party he organized (not about him) #4 one-line quote on a marketing site #5 1 quote in an article that isn't about him #7 a 1 paragraph announcement about him taking PayPal job, on a blog. If I missed something significant, please weigh in. LaMona (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antappan Ampiyayam[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N, and has few sources JDgeek1729 (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:07, 9 November 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 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wippien[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable software. Tagged six years for for notability. A Google search turns up a couple of reviews in tech sources, but not enough to confer notability. Safiel (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why you took off my Prod and sent it to an AFD. It did not survive a previous AFD, but instead was deleted for being spam. Anyway, no evidence of notability. I Google news searched and found nothing. Dream Focus 01:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several administrators who will not delete under PROD if an AfD discussion exists under any circumstances, so I just find it more efficient to decline and send to AfD, rather than let the PROD tag sit for a week, only to be declined by one of those administrators. Safiel (talk) 01:48, 10 November 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 17:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sourcing to warrant an article Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chirp. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 19:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chirp rate[edit]

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

The page in only linked from one other page, Chirp, and it does not contain any information that is not already in Chirp or which cannot be easily inferred from the content of Chirp. DoctorTerrella (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 9 November 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 17:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Chirp. This is essentially just a definition, and I do not imagine it could be expanded with anything that would not fit perfectly well in the main article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Chirp. I'm not sure why this is being considered for deletion; the topic is clearly verifiable in numerous RS and Chirp is an obvious merge target. There is academic work in chirp rate estimation, perhaps a standalone article could be written about this one day. But in the meantime, Chirp does not have a clear definition of chirp rate, so a merge is the best outcome for both articles. --Mark viking (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tracy Beaker Returns. Randykitty (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Williams (Actress)[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable actress. The text is a copy-paste copyright violation from the IMDb. Her credits are thin, and she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, though the BBC does seem to host a bit of promotional material available only to UK residents. I can't access it, but it would not be independent coverage, anyway. Frustratingly, it seems like the existence of an IMDb link precludes a BLPPROD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It actually looks like she was a fairly substantial role in the series Tracy Beaker Returns and its spin-off The Dumping Ground. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 3 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly notable as child actresses go. I mean she's 15 and has substantial air time already. Szzuk (talk) 18:55, 10 November 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 17:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a few sources so notability is there - Just takes some hard searching. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those look like press releases and publicity. Not sure about the Moviepilot citation, but I think that's a self-published blog post. I wouldn't say that they confer notability. Nonetheless, it looks like I'm going to get outvoted on this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete and Salt - I originally planned on working on it today seeing as working on it at 4am isn't ideal, Anyway there's nothing out there, Both the sources I added aren't great as one's more like a blog and the other's a passing mention and I agree with NinjaRobotPirate the third source is pretty much a blog, and If I'm being completely honest - The radio times link is only credits for the show so again not perfect, Being 15 and being on TV isn't even a valid reason for it to be kept at all, So for now I'd say there's no evidence of any notability. - Also as noted below the article appears to have been created constantly and since Jessie Williams (actress) is a redirect perhaps Salting should be applied. –Davey2010 • (talk) ~~14:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)~~ 04:26 - 22 Nov 2014.[reply]
Previous AFD - This article was the subject of a previous AFD. The result was redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns. This page has subsequently been speedily deleted twice for being an unimproved recreation of the previously-deleted article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow good find! - I've also found Jessie Williams (actress) which is a redirect ..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with editor above, redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns. That at least preserves history for expansion later if notability increases. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libamc[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate this is notable, clearly created with a clear COI and no references Jac16888 ^Talk 17:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only no references, I can't find anything at all about it outside of WP. (I actually found 2 SPA's - one named, one IP - possibly the same corporeal body.) LaMona (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically, opinions are split down the middle, and both sides are making reasonable arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How Global Warming Works[edit]

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

Fails the notability critera for a website. Website was launched 2013, on December 16, 2013 it had an article in Salon and NPR and that kicked off a few blog posts in the following few days. Other then that we have a mention by the author of the website (not a secondary source), and some passing mentions. Overall very trivial coverage of a website of a website that has almost no web traffic [12] (and only 37 other sites anywhere on the web that link to the website). The current page appears to mostly just be promotional under #5 "Advertising, marketing or public relations" about a very small website. Obsidi (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see you now believe NPR [13] is a reliable source? I think Scientific American [14] is also a reliable source? Oh yeah, and it was covered in The Washington Post [15]. I forgot, there is also Yahoo! News [16] article on it. All sources in the article when it was nominated. Oops, I just noticed it's covered at Phys.org [17]. I guess it doesn't fail the notability critera for a website after all? I think there is a whiff of Climate change denial in this nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t expect you to agree as the article creator, but I did want to explain myself. Its true, I was hesitant on including the NPR, as it was marked by NPR as a blog (unlike say the news story here). But the Salon post gets its source from the NPR post, so I thought I would include it. The Scientific America is also a blog post, the very next day, which also sources NPR. The Washington Post piece is again a blog post (not a news story), which also links to the NPR post (and mostly just duplicates what is in the NPR post). The Yahoo News is actually from takepart.com [18] an online blog(and of which the website was at best a passing mention), and posted 2 days after the NPR story. Likewise Phys.org is a blog. At best the Phys.org or takepart.com might be called a WP:NEWSBLOG, but even that would be a stretch as they have no actual publication, but more likely I would classify them a group blog and not a reliable source. The NPR/Salon/Washington Post/Scientific America are all be considered WP:NEWSBLOG, but they are also all at about the same time and derived from (and sourced to) the NPR post. No other reliable source, has picked it up in almost a year. (and how about we WP:AGF as to the “climate change denial" accusation?) --Obsidi (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I would refer to this in the general notability guideline: "It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." --Obsidi (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To make a sound argument, the conclusion must logically follow from the premises. The sources in the article are written by professionals and are independent. I suggest carefully reading the sources, they are not just paraphrases of each other. For example, the author of the Scientific American quoted two paragraphs from the NPR article and the rest is his description of the website and an update on more information provided by the website owner. The website is also recommend in a recent book: McCaffrey, Mark S. (2014). Climate Smart & Energy Wise: Advancing Science Literacy, Knowledge, and Know-How. Sage Publications. p. 192. ISBN 9781483372457. Retrieved 2 November 2014. The article is not promotional, it neutrally states what is in the sources. So, I fail to understand the policy motivation for this nomination. It's best now to let others decide. I have nothing more to say. I am One of Many (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually notice that book when I went looking for sources before I posted this, but a single sentence mentioning the website in passing I considered to be a trivial mention. And the Scientific American update cant be used to say that it is notable as it is from the author of the website and not independent source. I will wait to see if others agree that the sources are published at the same time and are "relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information" or not. --Obsidi (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not even remotely promotional and the website it describes meets the general notability guideline. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe website provides aggregation for a small set of youtube videos and is not notable beyond the marketing conducted in time to the release of said videos. The Wikipeida page provides marketing feedback and an added credential. I personally believe this represents a fundamental misuse of this venue. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks to me to be a one-trick pony; someone who developed a cute video to explain global warming in less than a minute. Even the Scientific American link is from a blog post that is not under their editorial governance. Basically, this was news for a short time in December, 2013. LaMona (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It received coverage in multiple independent sources, and is not a case of 109PAPERS because the topic is of continuing interest. For notability it's not required to have a steady stream of new sources every month. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It doesn't seem to meet WP:WEBCRIT for multiple independent in-depth coverage: lots of cites possible, but many seem to be redistributions of same story and/or heavily reliant on self-reported aspects, or is not in depth, or is in "soft" references (for example, blogs or opinion pieces in major sources do not automatically inherit high reliability because of their "in major sources" aspect). Sammy1339 is right that on-going coverage is not required, but neither is it sufficient that the underlying topic is of continuing interest (the article is about this specific website, not global warming). DMacks (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DMacks I created the article in good faith. I researched it for a couple of days and came to the conclusion that it was important enough in the scientific community to warrant an article. I think this article further supports the notable coverage within science: I think this article further supports that view Hall, Shannon (6 January 2014). "Global Warming Explained in 52 Seconds". Universe Today. Retrieved 8 November 2014. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) I don't think this article should be judged by its popularity with the general public, but rather by it notability in its science news coverage. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that Universe Today is a group blog and not a WP:RS. --Obsidi (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Obviously I was referring to the website being of continuing interest, not the fact of global warming. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I found the website as a video resource for Chapter 9 in Perspectives on International Relations Power, Institutions, and Idea by Henry R. Nau, published by Sage Publications. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial mention, contains one sentence about the website "This website features five videos that explain the mechanism behind global climate change in less than five minutes." --Obsidi (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a short article in the Eugene Weekly (I found using Bing) by Camilla Mortensen who is associate editor of the newspaper: Mortensen, Camilla (16 December 2014). "How global warming works". Eugene Weekly. Retrieved 8 November 2014.

A WP:NEWSBLOG posted a few hours after the NPR story. Add this to the NPR/Salon/Washington Post/Scientific America list, but sufficiently simultaneous and without any additional new sources or information. --Obsidi (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article from The Guardian that uses the website to explain global warming: Nuccitelli, Dana (24 June 2014). "Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 November 2014.

Almost not even a passing mention of the website, just links to it. --Obsidi (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While there's some good coverage in December 2013-January 2014, the coverage from February to now appears pretty weak -- barely scrapes by on GNG grounds, I think. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 8 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 9 November 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 17:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has notability, the site is on a very controversial subject. The news cycle will come back to the topic and the site will get more traffic. Notability doesnt vanish, if it did articles on old events would be deleted left and right. AlbinoFerret 14:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is one of those articles where notability is not crystal clear with cogent arguments on both sides of the debate. In such cases I usually favor giving the benefit of the doubt to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't see how this article meets WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not notable. Page name is alone is very debatable. Meatsgains (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear, the reason for deletion is the Global warming is not notable and the name of the article (the same as the website) is debatable? --I am One of Many (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is saying the subject as in the website is not notable. Subject in an AFD usually refers to the subject of the article (the thing the article is about). My guess the problem with the title he is suggesting is that normally with a title like this Wikipedia is saying that this is "how global warming works" in which would be a detailed description of how global warming works with links to scientific papers would be appropriate. Instead maybe "How Global Warming Works (website)" might be a more appropriate title for this page. (like this page: The Federalist (website)) --Obsidi (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Test cricket records. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 19:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketers Who Have Taken 10 Wickets And A Century In A Test Match[edit]

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

Three entries doesn't qualify for a stand alone list. NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 10:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Test cricket records. I agree that 3 items is a little short of the number required for such a list. But the information is of interest to cricket fans and deserves a place. I'm happy to do that. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:04, 13 November 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 17:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Test cricket records; the list is too short and arguably too obscure to stand alone, but it does seem like it could be of interest to cricket fans. It does, after all, describe a pretty impressive combination of events. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per both Perry and Luke above. List of Test cricket records conspicuously lacks an all-round section in its individual records section so this table should start one and another table should be created for all-round career totals. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Merge !vote. It's a pretty staggering feat is 10 wickets and a century; hence the very short list of people who've done it. I wouldn't expect vast numbers of players to be added to it even in the next hundred years, so it's not really suitable for a separate list; fits nicely in the records article though. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Badrina[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here quite rises to the level of notability, and we don't have the multiple in-depth independent reliable sources required for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and only one reference. I couldn't find anything beyond social media that he participates in, with the exception of the reference that is listed here. Article was created and solely edited by User:Ebadrina.LaMona (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar ⨹ 19:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michel van Rijt[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. Titles do not appear to be that impressive - and does not meet WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: No evidence of notability. Keep. Evidence of notability has been established with the argument below. The fact that the title is not impressive is not a rationale for deletion. Wikicology (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titles as per WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that the advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it may not provide valid criteria for an AfD nomination. However, reliable sourcing is the most important factor for AfD nomination. Wikicology (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cleaned up some of the article (that's one of the problems with autobiographies). More importantly, I was able to source two of his bronze medals at the JJIF world championships. Even though I couldn't find sources for some of the other claims, I think this is enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Medals at four world championships (even if only 2 are sourced) is enough to meet WP:MANOTE. I think the whole section on training can go unless someone can add some sources.Mdtemp (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is an author of "Ju-Jitsu: Forbidden Techniques" Notability author [19] CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabin Rai[edit]

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

The article is unsoucred and fails Music — CutestPenguin^Hangout 10:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:13, 9 November 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 ♔ 15:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have foreign paper sources that focus on the artist:
- "Sabin Rai's husky notes have fans asking for more." Himalayan Times. February 9, 2011. 300 words.
- "Heavenly rain and music." eKantipur. August 8, 2011. 566 words.
- "Spain is the team to beat: Sabin Rai." My Republica. June 10, 2014. 300 words.
- "Radio Kantipur marks 12th anniversary." eKantipur. November 27, 2010. 314 words. (won award from Radio Kantipur: best male pop vocalist)

All from PQ. Also have a whole lot of additional passing mentions. The artist is apparently well known in Nepal. czar ⨹ 22:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shikshanirman[edit]

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

The only references listed are from primary sources, except for one, which is a list of students. I searched for both "Shikshanirman" and "Shiksha Nirman" in Google Web, Google News and Yahoo! News, and I didn't find any secondary notable source. Their own website has a page that should list examples of media coverage and the list is empty. From what I'm observing, it fails WP:GNG and I'm nominating the article for deletion so that a consensus about the notability can be reached. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 11:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that ^[1] has been provided mentioning about fundraising program.Iamfighter (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iamfighter: Thanks for the update. The editors who will contribute to this discussion will take in account your update. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 15:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ fund raising link from newpaper website

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 9 November 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 ♔ 15:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently WP:TOOSOON for this organization. No indication that it is currently notable. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No meaningful hits in secondary source databases ProQuest and Lexis Nexis (same passing mention in both databases when searched with a space). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 05:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. Complete absence of any confirmation, construction by two SPAs, Justin Bieber and John McEnroe in the cast list... this nonsense should not be allowed to hang about. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cantos of Ezra Pound[edit]

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

Possible WP:Hoax, finding no evidence of this movie/director. If real it is WP:TOOSOON ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 15:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:HOAX or at most being TOO SOON and failing WP:NFF. Allow a return or recreation only if or when guideline is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Loriendrew: With a little research I did find the purported filmmaker De Quesada is an actor/writer/producer/director so the idea of his creating this project is not impossible, though admittedly the latest series of unverifiable information make the article seem quite hoaxy. You'd think even an "rumoured" project of Scarlett Johansson and Adrien Brody would get some sort of mention in the trades. This one has nothing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: I just reverted and gave two SPA editors a level-one warning about the BLP issues. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd support deleting this as a hoax, as I can't find even the slightest bit of evidence to prove that any such film is in production or is even a twinkle in any director's eye. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saptarshi Mazumder[edit]

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

non-notable WP:MUSICBIO, or is it WP:ACTORBIO, or is it WP:FILMMAKER? Either way, clearly WP:AUTO. Search reveals self-published links. Of note is the external reference to a speedy deletion at wikia. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof of notability. Seems to be a candidate for Speedy del.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedily. SPA has removed prod tags and speedy tags several times, non-notable in every way. Dea db eef 20:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just restored the BLP PROD and CSD tags, for the second time, and blocked the IP responsible for that for 60 hours: it's a bit irritating. Perhaps a real admin will come by and take care of the matter. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Lewis (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. This one was difficult with the current version of the article being a trimmed down version of one of the most hyperbole driven articles I have seen. I trimmed it down to a previous more sensible version but in voting it might be worth looking at the larger (basically unsourced) version. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I updated his UFC record with what was at sherdog.com and added his ADCC results (with sources). He doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG and I don't believe his 4th place finish at the inaugural ADCC event is enough to show notability on its own. Papaursa (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Fails WP:NMMA and I don't think his ADCC record is enough to meet WP:MANOTE. I also didn't find the coverage necessary to show meets GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AIRLINE Online[edit]

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

Not-notable web-based version of an older game MilborneOne (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is impossible to accurately determine what is accurately sourced in this article, and what is original research. Beyond that, the incredibly generic name does not generate any extra secondary sources as far as I can see. Based on the article's references, we just have mentions of it actually being used as part of a programme, and a generic University name drop; I don't see how this counts towards any notability guidelines. There's no valid redirect target either, so it needs to go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this product called Simulate or Airline Online? This is a similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIRLINE Simulation, both airline management simulators with no apparent secondary coverage. Poked around in a few databases and found nothing. Agree that there's no worthwhile redirect target. Please ping me if non-English or offline sources are found. czar ♔ 04:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AIRLINE Simulation[edit]

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

Non-notable software game (proposed deletion removed by originator) MilborneOne (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No worthwhile redirect targets. The full name is still unclear to me, which doesn't help, but by any stretch, I'm not finding any secondary sourcing on this with or without the "zimmerman" or "commodore" attributes to help. Of the sources in the article, one is a PowerPoint apparently given by the creator (primary source) and the others are inaccessible or just not sources. No hits in a video game reliable sources search. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 15:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is impossible to tell what is valid in the article, and what may be original research. However, I'm not finding any extra sourcing on this whatsoever either, although this is complicated somewhat by the incredibly generic name. Everything in the article does not appear to count towards any notability guideline; one is apparently a primary source, two are not going to count in any way (individual profile pages of University members or just name dropping universities) and the other is impossible to assess for its reliability. No valid redirect target, so this has to go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Register of Historic Places featured properties and districts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a list of items that have appeared in the "weekly highlight" column of the recent listings page for the National Register of Historic Places website. As noted in the first AFD, the weekly-highlight places aren't anything of particular significance: "the National Register staff chooses an interesting property that is to be listed that week", and different from other weekly-highlight places, and that's it. This is solely a list of items that appeared on one page of one website, with the selection criteria literally being "we thought it was interesting". As I said in the first AFD, this is comparable to a list of US Senators appearing in the newspaper The Hill: the list is a trivial intersection of notable topics, just as a list of senators mentioned in The Hill would be, and as a result it's not at all a useful list. Final note, the original AFD appears to have gotten kept partly on process/interpersonal grounds; there was a dispute going on between the AFD nominator and the list's creator, a dispute that later led to an arbitration case and an indefinite National Register topic ban for the creator. Unlike the first AFD, this should be voted purely on the (de)merits of the list itself: is it a good idea to have a list of places that appeared on one page of a US government website because the website staff thought they were interesting? Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any objective criteria for featuring a property, and the featured properties don't get any special treatment (e.g. a plaque) nor does this provoke significant interest among the public. This is, therefore, essentially WP:TRIVIA. Pburka (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no special significance to being a featured property; in fact, there have been weeks where there was only one new listing which was featured by default. That means we're essentially republishing the National Park Service's list of properties they found interesting, which isn't the job of an encyclopedia. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 16:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The buildings and places themselves are certainly notable, but there is nothing encyclopedic about the fact that an "interesting" place was used for a week (or two) to spiff up a website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 19:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burgess Park tube station[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Entirely speculative; none of the sources indicate that construction of this station (or even of this route) has been formally authorised; the second and third show that it is still at the consultation stage. Only the first (which is clearly copied from this Wikipedia article) and fourth (which is a diagram of uncertain provenance, without supporting text) actually mentions Burgess Park. Redrose64 (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL "and could be opened by 2030" pretty much sums it up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge or simply rename to Bakerloo line extension. The project for the extension is notable, even at the present moment, but plans for a possible station (which is only part of 2/3 of the option plans) are not. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would do nicely. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per Andy Dingley and others, with merger of material and with thanks to User:Suffolk82 for adding the material and sources. Note that per Suffolk82's contributions, they are a new editor. We ought to be more explicit in AFDs not to harsh on new contributors, including not deleting any very large part of their contributions unnecessarily. Redirect with merger is not deleting; the record of contribution remains in edit history, and the material and sources are used in the target article. --do ncr am 00:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all above. On another note, how can a train coming from Elephant & Castle be going "towards Elephant & Castle"? --Oakshade (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's down to how ((s-line)) and its subtemplate ((S-line/side cell)) work - it's hardcoded into Template:S-line/LUL right/Bakerloo. If the line does get extended, we amend that last subtemplate and all the stations on the line automatically get updated for the new southern terminus. But until that happens, we leave it alone. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the unlikely event this article is kept, there should be a customized template to reflect the proposed reality. --Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There will be, it will be used something like those at Kennington tube station#External links (the Northern line extension to Battersea is not merely a consultation, but approved and just awaits funding). But at this stage, no southern terminus for a possible Bakerloo line extension has been settled, so it is misleading to give anything other than the present terminus at the Elephant. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, without prejudice to recreation as an article iff the station gets the go-ahead. Mjroots (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar ♔ 04:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv V. Joshi[edit]

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

autobiography, fails prof test. Just another researcher promoting his work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I had to gut the article because most of the original content was a copyright violation. I had rewritten the "education" part, but not the rest, which consequently is now missing. Yes, self-promotion is an issue here, but there is also a significant amount of third-party coverage of Joshi and his work, including coverage of what looked like notable awards to me. Huon (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - I have found many papers authored by this person and they are quite cited by other academic papers. There are also several awards, some of them assigned by IBM and another one assigned by IEEE (relate to his achievement at IBM). In a biography I've found the statement that he won also the Lewis Winner Award in 1992, but I can't find any reliable secondary source that could support the claim. The only reason why I've not added all these information to the article is that evaluating the notability of an academic requires usually a check to ascertain whether the papers have been peer-reviewed. I've not done this check, yet, but until now all the hints point to a notable person and that's why I have suggested a cautious keep. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 16:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: removed the "Weak" after realizing that the IEEE fellowship alone would be enough to meet the WP:PROF criteria. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 02:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rajiv was induscted into NJ Inventor Hall of fame for patented wotk on IC manufacturing, Memory technology and circuit design and predictive analytics. He received prestigious 2013 IEEE Industrial Pioneer Award for pioneering work in VLSI design and technology. He has over 200 US patents and close to 350 international patents. This work played a impactful role to push Moore’s law He received the 1992 Lewis Winner Award from the IEEE International Solid state Circuit Conference for fabricating a superfast chip called “lightening”. He won IEEE Jim Mccalla Award for the best paper from ICCAD which form the Predictive Failure Analytics for Silicon chips. Rajiv is a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)[5]. for generating novel chip metallurgies which are used in all modern electronics- - from main frames, servers, cellphones to wearable computing, He received the 2008 Distinguished Alumni Award from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India,[7] for his contributions to VLSI technology and design areas. He is a Distinguished Lecture for IEEE Elelctron and Device Society (EDS) and IEEE Circuits and Systems Society (CASS) and has given several international talks in the area of low power designs and predictive Failure analytics for memories.

1. IBM researchers develop stable SRAM operating at 6 GHz: http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1166593
2. Dr. Rajeev Vasant Joshi | Alumni and Corporate Relations: http://www.iitb.ac.in/alumni/en/awards/2008/distinguished-alumnus/dr-rajeev-vasant-joshi
3. Best Paper Award - ICCAD: http://2012.iccad.com/2012_ieeeacm_william_j_mccalla_iccad_best_paper_award
4. Lecture abstract(s) and speaker biographies - IEEE Circuits: http://ieee-cas.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DLP2013-2014Lectures.pdf
5. LNQE - Technology and Circuit Co-design for overcoming: http://www.lnqe.uni-hannover.de/singlenews_termin.html?&L=1&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1006&cHash=0a3baaaf3f0f203fb842b13acb82f5d1 Rvjoshi (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is an IEEE Fellow per the mandetech.com reference already in this entry. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 00:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing remains of the original autobio version of this article, and either the IEEE Fellow or the citation record alone would be enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IEEE Fellow qualifies per WP:PROF criteria. --_nonsense ferret 23:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This person is an IEEE Fellow, which is a selective honor. In turn, this page meets the WP:PROF#C3.Salani 08:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein after two relistings is for deletion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Estrada[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE, I attempted to find significant coverage from non-primary and non-secondary reliable sources and what I found was wanting, and IMHO does not meet WP:GNG or other more stringent notability guidelines. An Obit is easily found, however, that can be seen as WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. The subject wrote two books, however, neither one a major award, nor have I seen anything that indicates that the subject meets other criteria set forth in WP:AUTHOR. The subject was also a professor, and wrote multiple papers, however the subject does not appear to have met any of the criteria set forth in WP:NACADEMICS; while the subject did write the numerous papers as I had linked, the work of the subject does not appear to meet criteria #1 or #4. Therefore, I propose that this article is deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I rescued this article in 2009, before he died, so WP:MEMORIAL did not apply then, and WP:BLP does not apply now. Estrada was notable for several reasons - as an AP reporter, writing professor, etc. I rescued this due to my interest in Filipino-Americans (my fiance is Pinoy, FWIW). It appears that well-meaning editors have taken out some of the text and citations. I certainly think this can be fixed. By the way, journalism as an academic field is under-represented in such indices. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the subject was a reporter, but can the above editor please provide reliable sources where the subject received significant coverage of them self? Just being a reporter does not make the subject notable?

Also the subject does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, can the above editor please provide reliable sources indicating that the subject does?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see dead people ... sorry for the morbid humor .... Anyway, how about these: [20], [21], or [22]. It also appears that Estrada 'scooped' other journalists on the People's Temple, see [23]. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist). Bearian (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is to a book written by the subject, and is actually a passage more about the subject's son, than the subject himself. The second link is again from a book written by the subject. The third link does not provide indepth coverage of the subject. Furthermore the books appear to be published via iUniverse, a self-publishing company, thus falls under WP:SPS. The fourth link is also to a self-published source. The subject may have scooped other journalist, but that event is not itself notable, nor is it about the subject. Usage of an article written by the subject maybe used in the People's Temple article, but that does not add to the notability of the subject of this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:NACADEMICS. Outside of his obituaries, he has not received WP:Significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret. I tried to rescue the article, I really did. Death often prompts obituary writers and others to notice and record the significance of a life, and I am sure that Estrada's life influenced those who knew him. However, there is only 1 obit, the 2 books he wrote were self-published, and I really couldn't find any mention of either book elsewhere. Bearian, if you find sources I would be glad to revisit this vote.ShulMaven (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found what I could find. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 6 November 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, BusterD (talk) 01:53, 9 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am no longer opposing this deletion, based on the discussion above. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Paddick[edit]

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

Basically, a vanity piece brought to you by the subject, and I do wonder who that most recent IP editor was. You'll find a few references that might be acceptable (from Jamaica's Gleaner and Observer--though I do have doubts about there editorial independence), but solid references, especially those that can verify basic facts here, are hard to come by. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While conflict of interest isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, in this instance its effect has been to make a royal hash of the article. The tone is a blatant POV mess (let's just say that the talk page admission that the article has been edited by the subject's own company's own marketing department surprised me about as much as the sun rising in the east), nearly all of the referencing is primary sourced crap, and the article will need such a massive quality overhaul to be brought back into line with Wikipedia's actual content standards that starting over from scratch would be infinitely preferable to attempting to fix this version. No prejudice against recreation of a good version in the future if better sourcing can be found and a more properly neutral and encyclopedic writing tone can be maintained — but this version desperately needs to be given the nuke and pave treatment. Bearcat (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While I can't get enthusiastic about keeping this article in WP, I do see a few references that lend some credibility to the subject. #14 (a Canadian business award, although no longer being given - "on hiatus") #23 Ernst & Young #25 An alumnus award. The other articles mainly attest to the fact that he has a thriving telecom business. Successful, yes. But is that enough to be notable? I don't think so. LaMona (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:BLPDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 05:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar al-Hazmi[edit]

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

A7 This person does not meet notability guidelines. The article only states he was a roommate and fellow student of a 9/11 hijacker. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNGThis person does not meet notability guidelines. The article only states he was a roommate and fellow student of a 9/11 hijacker. Petebutt (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless there are offline sources not readily referenced online, I don't see anything approaching RS about this subject. The subject can be verified, but doesn't meet GNG or BIO. BusterD (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This got very little discussion even after two relists. The fact that most of the references are not in English makes it difficult for English-speakers to evaluate, but that doesn't automatically mean they're not reliable sources. I'm going to call this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KnockDoc[edit]

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

advertisement The Banner talk 13:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this looks like some interesting entrepreneur-ship, it is not an app with notability at WP level. LaMona (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric W. Brown[edit]

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

Clearly an autobiography, with all non-primary sources being one off mentions. An interviews are on unknown unreliable sites. Does not meet WP:COMPOSER, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't indicate clearly enough why he should have an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable source is the Nashville Scene - the rest are blogs. The Nashville Scene articles are not enough to establish notability. LaMona (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Good afternoon (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denied[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS.Note: There was a previous nomination which related to a film, not this song, and was a delete. Richhoncho (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to delete - would like to have some chart info added, if so then move to Denied (Unwritten Law song), clearly not primary. Otherwise redirect to Denial dab or create new Denied dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Good afternoon (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Balma[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist, edging heavily into promotional public relations/advertising territory and sourced almost entirely to primary sourcing in which the subject herself is credited as the author of the reference in question. It's certainly possible that she might qualify for a properly and neutrally written article sourced to properly reliable sources, but ~~she's not entitled to keep this~~ this doesn't qualify for inclusion in its present form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Not quite finding enough sources to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. On a separate note, I might suggest removing the last clause of the nomination as purely an assumption of bad faith. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand how it implies bad faith of any sort. It's not any sort of accusation against her as an individual, but a statement about the quality of the article as written. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically she's not entitled to keep this. There is meaning created by connecting "she" and "keep" when an AfD is supposed to be about Wikipedia keeping something. Whether intended or not, it implies some sense of COI, article ownership, or otherwise a sense that the extent to which the subject of this article benefits is in any way relevant to whether or not we keep it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, trust me that I didn't intend to imply that — but I'll rephrase it nonetheless. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Could use better referencing and toning down of the promotional language, but there's no consensus here to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangued Christian Hospital[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably to List of hospitals in the Philippines#Abra, or simply Keep perhaps, depending upon whether some significant coverage can be found. Probably plenty of coverage in Philippines languages exists, but i am not the one to find that. Note the hospital does appear to exist, has 17 beds per http://www.biyahero.net/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=82&sobi2Id=1007&Itemid=56, is ranked perhaps 4th out of 9 hospitals in Abra (province), a province of the Philippines whose capital is Bangued, Abra. Per that source, the medical facilities in Abra include:

Abra Provincial Hospital (100 beds) - Capitulacion St., Calaba (tel: 752-5692)
Bangued Christian Hospital (17 beds) - Lorben's Hill, Torrijos St., Zone 5 (tel: 752-8544 and 752-8503)
Dr. Petronilo V. Seares Memorial Hospital (35 beds) - Penarrubia St., Zone 4
Sta. Monica Hospital
Valera Medical Hospital (24 beds) - Rizal St., Zone 7
Bobila Clinic - Zone 7
St. James Clinic - Zone 7
St. Jude Medical Clinic (12 beds) - Rizal St., Zone 7
Seares Memorial Clinic - Zone 4

No need to delete outright; better to preserve edit history and facilitate restoration of separate article when/if significant other sources found.--do ncr am 01:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would KEEP it for its historical value, being a rare Mennonite hospital in the Philippines with a long history.--RioHondo (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ternopil State Medical University[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyvio of their own website. Presumably we ought to have an article about any university, but this one needs complete rewrite based on neutral independent sources: Noyster (talk), 16:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's a copyvio then reduce it to a stub and start again, but it's clearly notable as a degree-awarding institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- None of us like the content, if we keep a stub isn't it open for the offending content to be easily restored? Doesn't WP:BLOWITUP apply in a case like this? Not being disputatious, just finding my way round this AfD scene: Noyster (talk), 10:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The institute itself has the elements of notability, the article is just badly written. Refs are also clearly available in Google. Chhandama (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with a request that a Russian and/or Ukrainian speaking editor remove copyvios and paraphrase in moderation. Universities are almost always notable. I can't seem to access the university website so don't know its language. Noyster, please note that WP:BLOWITUP is an essay, and opinions of its persuasiveness vary among experienced editors. It is neither policy nor guideline. In my view, that essay would apply more in the case of an ambitious young singer than in the current case of a medical school. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Necrothesp and others. --do ncr am 17:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Busuioc[edit]

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

I think the level of sourcing easily qualifies this as tabloid trash rather than encyclopedic material. Of the links that worked, here's what I got:

no mention
passing mention, passing mention, passing mention
some glossy women's magazine gushing over her red-carpet outfit
two press releases, once repeated: Italian, Italian; Romanian, Romanian

Like I said, pretty poor, and no real indication she might pass WP:ENT or WP:BIO. Which isn't surprising: the article creator specializes in biographies of nonentities, and is probably paid for his work. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles are mostly from fashion magazines and are about what she wore rather than her work. There are some longer articles in Moldovian which are about her (from what I can make out). She does have a starring role in an Italian film soon to be released. I'd call this one WP:TOOSOON. She may become a blockbuster star, but at age 25 it looks like her career may just be beginning. LaMona (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well known actress in Italy.User:Lucifero4

"~~A well-known actress" is not a valid argument. By the way, if she were really well-known her article would not possibly have fallen here.~~ --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced promotional article coming from promotional sockfarm. Violates TOU in terms of undeclared COI editing. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Central Election Commission of Albania. For the unlikely case that somebody might actually search for this name, I'm leaving a redirect to Central Election Commission of Albania. Randykitty (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artan Lazaj[edit]

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

I don't think that members (not even president) of an election commission are notable per se. The one sentence stub has been here for years with a notability tag and almost without (one weak link only) sourcing. This as an extra, because it's not a notability guideline: No other WP, including the Albanian, has seen a necessity of making this person an article. I present it to your views. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Highbeam search gave 0 results. On google I found a few Albanian and Kosovo newsmedia, As far as I can tell, without any knowledge of Albanian, he was a member of the election committee, who was sued for "corruption" in a months long trial. It is hard to judge noteworthyness on translated texts. Currently however none of this is in the article. The current version of the article lacks a clear reason for notability and lacks reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the commission only has seven members I'm guessing that these are quite prominent people in the Albanian establishment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: - He is one of seven in a small country, not the chair or vice-chair. The deputy election commissioner of Australia (vice chair in a big country) will probably not be considered one of the top people in Australian politics. Same goes in Albania, It is a commission, and there are other commisssions, making the membership of commissions in a country alot higher then seven. I agree the chance exists he is noteworthy, but I think it should be made clear by reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a great analogy, as four of the six Australian commissioners do have articles! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian commissioner, 1 person, sometimes has an article. He is comparable to the chair of the Albanian committee. The next 6 people in line in the Australian committee do not have articles. The subject is not the chair, but is one of the 6 people. Taketa (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see that now. My mistake. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 5 November 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, BusterD (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Election Commission of Albania. JTdale ^Talk 12:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage, merely a link to the CEC's webpage. He's not even mentioned in the Central Election Commission of Albania article and being a member of an appointed commission does not make him a notable politician.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey MS Therapy Centre[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 2 November 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, BusterD (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly promotional advertorial. No notability, still orphan. Chhandama (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. a charity with no notability, probably 10 employees. Szzuk (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It is a notable hospital. (non-admin closure) Good afternoon (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King Fahad Specialist Hospital Dammam[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 2 November 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, BusterD (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable hospital, and if you feel that a particular wording is promotional, you may reword it. The final passage is backed up by http://books.google.com/books?id=z6d_3NJj-uUC&pg=PA286 (albeit this is clearly not an entirely neutral publication). --Soman (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Soman, and also I removed excessive negative tagging of article, now not an orphan, now not unreferenced, no need for duplicative advert tags, so no need for "multiple issues" tag. Actually it doesn't seem like an advert to me, either. --do ncr am 17:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Robert Young[edit]

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

Tagged with notability issue for over 2 years. All sources are primary, no substantial coverage from third-party sources, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mostly self-sourced as it sits, but seemingly a big enough web footprint to indicate the existence of suitable independent sourcing if one digs deeply enough. File me under WP:IAR as a rationale for now (Use Common Sense), but watch for sources to materialize if people take time to hunt... Carrite (talk) 23:15, 3 November 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, BusterD (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can increase their "web footprint" by making lots of websites, blogs, videos etc. Any chance of digging deep enough for these non-primary sources? As noboby has done so for over 2 years+.--Otterathome (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very weak sources. Skipping the blogs and fan pages, the only thing I can find is mere mentions of his name. No third party resources about him that would support notability. LaMona (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Show[edit]

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

Article tagged with issue for over 5 years. No third-party sources to show notability, delete. Otterathome (talk) 13:46, 1 November 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) 16:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article survived a PROD in 2009 based on the claim that the topic was covered by RSes like G4TV. The ref that was added (and still exists in the article) does indeed cover the topic so it's not accurate to say that no third party sources exist. Finding good sourcing is a bit of a challenge since the name is so generic. There may not be much so I decline to !vote "keep" at present. -Thibbs (talk) 12:40, 2 November 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, BusterD (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not identify it as truly independant as it looks like G4 & The Game Show people come from the same set of companies Revision3#History, so are current or previous colleagues. This is also explains why there's so many guests from G4TV in its episodes.--Otterathome (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Good afternoon (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Oesch[edit]

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

I'm nominating this, Sailing for Madagascar and Echo (2003 film) for deletion. I came across these entries via the speedy deletion process, where User:Tomoesch had requested that each page be deleted as WP:G7, author request. However as he is not the primary author and there is an assertion of notability, I declined the speedy deletions and asked him to file a ticket via ORTS that proves that he is Oesch. (Which will go a long way towards the articles getting deleted.) Now even if it does end up that he isn't who his username implies he is (although I think he is), the problem here is that I don't see where he or his films are particularly notable enough for an article. He did win some awards at the Rochester International Film Festival ([24]) but I don't see where those awards are really enough to show notability to where we'd keep the articles. If anyone can find sources to show notability then I'm open to persuasion, but given the user request and the difficulty I had in finding sources, I'd say that we'd lose nothing by deleting these. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 November 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, BusterD (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the request by the subject of the article (whom we should thank for his integrity), the article lacks significant references. LaMona (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This AfD was not well attended, but it seems clear that there's a consensus to delete all of the articles nominated. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quagmire family[edit]

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

The Quagmire family is simply not notable; the series is, but notability is not inherited. Even the triplets are only secondary characters, and each triplet appears in no more than 3 books, along with occasional mentions in a couple more. In addition, the page contains original research such as "Quigley's first name may be a reference to Lillian Fox Quigley", far too much detail in description and completely trivial sections such as "Isadora's couplets". It's best to just delete the page and write a small section about the triplets and smaller section about the parents in List of supporting A Series of Unfortunate Events characters: it's probably not even worth using the current article as a starting point, because it's far too detailed and still gives undue weight to trivial details about characters mentioned off-hand (e.g. "According to Quigley, Mr. Quagmire used to say, "A good meal can cheer one up considerably."").

Additionally, there are too many list articles for the characters: this makes it hard to navigate for readers. In this instance, a person may expect to find the Quagmires when looking at List of supporting A Series of Unfortunate Events characters, but this is even more apparent in articles listed below. For instance, Carmelita Spats should certainly not fall under V.F.D. members and probably not Count Olaf's theater troupe either.

The following articles all follow the same pattern, and I am therefore also nominating them for deletion. For other, slightly more notable articles like Baudelaire family or Beatrice Baudelaire, separate nominations may still be warranted, but I have not nominated them here.

Count Olaf's theater troupe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): more notable than both of the above troupe members, obviously, as it contains them both and several more characters. However, there is still too much detail. I would also argue the title is a misnomer; Fiona, Lulu, Ernest or the sinister duo should definitely not be filed under there. The wart-faced man and Orwell probably do not belong there either. Possibly, you could merge some other characters in there and rename the article Antagonists from A Series of Unfortunate Events, but then you've got a problem with Hugo, Kevin and Colette. The article could be used for a starting point when merging wherever it ends up: it's not in as bad shape as some others nominated above. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 10:15, 1 November 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 November 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 13:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 13:04, 1 November 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, BusterD (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Lemony Snicket portal appears to have these sorts of issues, the talk page seems to have problems with forum-like posts since 2007, and there are a few comments about fixing the issues dating back to 2009 but obviously nothing has come of that. I agree that a lot of this information is unnecessary and definitely needs to be condensed down into even just a list or two of general characters. Even the wikia entries contain less information on these characters. Luluagain (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rather complex case this. In my opinion, there should be a single article for the characters of the Series of Unfortunate Events, where as much or as little detail is warranted on any character who is relevant. There's certainly no need for all of these poorly sourced and overly fluffed-out articles. Wikipedia is not a fan site, and as Luluagain pointed out, even the Wikia of this franchise has less fluff. So Delete or merge. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bogans on the Run[edit]

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

Notability, no references, primary sources, tone, orphan, no edits in past year. This article has no notability to speak of, no references at all, and an extremely unencyclopedic tone. The few page views it has been attracting is likely to be because the title contains the word "bogan", which is Australian slang for an uncultured person from the outer suburban areas. Such readers are looking for a WP article on "bogan", and leave as soon as they realize what it's really about. When editors are suffering the rigors of the AfC process, and see that unworthy articles like this are able to survive, they become very disheartened. Deleting articles like this raises the standard overall. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article was either an advertisement or copied from an advertisement. The programme it promotes was broadcast very briefly on an obscure internet channel nearly 7 years ago. Since that time, even the SPAs which created the article have lost all interest, so we can safely presume the show is lacking in the required notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article reads like an advertisement. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 08:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - attempts notability by association, but association is slight and no significant independent sources provided The-Pope (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments. Otherwise, consensus is to redirect. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 07:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aceto (album)[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS, "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is not the case with this article. Not notable. I performed a Google search, and the only article I found about the album is this one, which happens to talk about the album in the future tense, and it seems like a weak source to me anyway, with fewer than 9,000 "likes" on its corresponding Facebook page, which is here. Perhaps more material can be found, but I don't believe this article can survive as a standalone article. I recommend adding most of the content to the musician's article (Michéal Castaldo) in the discography section as a collapsable table. Notice that the article has zero secondary sources even though a notability template was added more than three years ago. A more recent template requesting citations for verification has been ignored. The article seems to serve merely promotional purposes. P.S. Other albums released by this musician are in the exact same situation. Dontreader (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. If practically no one else cares that this article is blatantly promotional and is clearly not notable, then neither do I. It's been here two weeks. So, let the article live, let it prosper, let it have children. May God bless it. I will never nominate an article for deletion again. Please close this "discussion". Thank you. Dontreader (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did find an interview on an online radio program; YTP Radio and CelebrityCafe. Unsure of the reliability of either though Celebrity Cafe 65,000 likes on their facebook page. JTdale ^Talk 02:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks, JTdale. I happen to be somewhat familiar with the first source you mentioned. That radio show is (or was) hosted on BlogTalkRadio, which is an online non-professional system. I've seen shows there with no listeners at all, and typically they have under 50 listeners (when a chat room is available you see how many people are tuned in). Notice that the information provided on that page about Castaldo was copied and pasted from his Wikipedia page. So that source cannot count. I'm not sure about the other source you brought up, but even supposing it's reliable (although I have no clue how professional their staff is), I don't think The Celebrity Cafe and The Hamptons amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 07:40, 4 November 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the singer's article. NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That sounds like a great idea to me, Why should I have a User Name?. After all, the only sources provided are 1. To his own website. 2. To Amazon where you can buy the album. 3. To the video on his YouTube channel. So, to me it seems blatantly promotional (the image too). I have not found substantial independent coverage of the album.

My only concern is that it's a pain in the a$$ to write track listings, so how about transferring that content to the discography section of Castaldo's article before the redirect page is created? I could do that, as well as with his other album articles. Dontreader (talk) 06:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist. Album lacks coverage about it. No independent notability shown. Even the artist page is questionable. (disclosure, I was informed about this afd). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Micheal Castaldo's article. Being the nominator, I hope I'm allowed to vote this way to reach consensus. I saved the Aceto album article information here since I believe at least the track listing can be included in the artist's article, preferably as a collapsable table, and collapsed as the default mode. Dontreader (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yetisports[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have any reliable sources to back up its notability. As well as parts of the article fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. GamerPro64 03:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Yetisports (series) and clean up (AKA properly source) - I see over 100k hits when I run a search through the WP:VG Custom RS Search. Of course the results cover not just the first game, but all of the different versions and sequels (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., etc.). Coverage is widespread internationally too, with Polish, German, Russian, and Japanese RSes reporting (PL, DE, RU, JP) among others. So the series seems to be pretty well covered which indicates some that there's something notable here. I can't say I find a huge amount on just the first member in the series (i.e. the ostensible topic of our Wikipedia article), but merging what we have into "Yetisports (series)" and properly sourcing it might allow us to salvage some of the work that has gone into what we have so far. -Thibbs (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can get that to happen, I'm all for the proposal. GamerPro64 05:22, 6 November 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Iowa, 2014#District 4. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Mowrer[edit]

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

Mowrer's only claim to notability is being a candidate for the United States House of Representatives. WP:POLITICIAN notes that merely being an unelected candidate isn't enough and I don't see anything else here. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Iowa, 2014#District 4 per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Subject has received mention in multiple non-primary and secondary reliable sources, some of which meet WP:SIGCOV, therefore the subject is notable per WP:GNG. However, all these reliable sources are about this subject in regards to a single event, which is the race for the 4th Congressional District of Iowa in 2014; therefore, the subject falls under WP:BIO1E. As the subject has not received significant coverage outside of this political race, the essay that best instructs us what to do is POLOUTCOMES, that says that politicians who ran for notable sub-national and national races, who are not notable outside of the field of politics, are to be redirected to the most relevant race which the subject ran for (or something similar to those words). As the subject does not meet the criteria set forth in WP:SOLDIER, a redirect to the target stated in my first sentence is the best solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Iowa, 2014#District 4 per RightCowLeftCoast. This is an appropriate outcome for an unsuccessful candidate running for a national office Enos733 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Four-point play. Michig (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association career 4-point play leaders[edit]

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

This article cannot possibly be maintained accurately, and is it really notable anyhow? Hoops gza (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems like excessive WP:TRIVIA and WP:CRUFT to me. A 4-point play is not even an official statistic, and the article does not appear to be entirely correct anyway. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge part to Four-point play, which is short. I'd include the current record holder and the notable examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Four-point play.-- danntm ^T _C 20:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Four-point play Robert4565 (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We could do a merge, but I'm not sure if the list is verifiable or correct. One of the references for the list is from Youtube and another one is from a sports blog. Natg 19 (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Non-notable list of sports statistics. Merge per Clarityfiend's excellent suggestion above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what is verifiable and notable to Four-point play. A full merge is not warranted; as the deleters point out, a lot of this is not cited and is dubious.—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Columbus Crew SC#Club culture. There is already some mention of Hudson Street Hooligans at Columbus Crew SC#Club culture, and there is at least some feeling here that a full merge would not be appropriate, so just going with the redirect. If anybody wants to cherry-pick from this article's history to add to Columbus Crew, that's within normal editorial judgement. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Street Hooligans[edit]

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable (per WP:NORG) SEE BELOW Quis separabit? 13:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Columbus Crew SC#Club culture. Giant Snowman 08:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Columbus Crew SC. IJA (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~::: Merge: with Columbus Crew SC; amenable to other editors' suggestions. Quis separabit? 13:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Either delete or merge with Columbus Crew SC; I am amenable to other editors' suggestions and to decision based upon consensus. Sorry for dithering and being wishy washy. Those aren't usually adjectives ascribed to me. Quis separabit? 20:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - No independant notability, would not want to merge as the content here is a bit crufty and I am not sure that the FC article needs a paragraph on one fan groups trouble with their pub. Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I do not see a specialized criteria at WP:NSPORT which this passes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep or at least hold on for a bit. A quick search pulls up a few sources. The article is pretty much unsourced but looks easy enough to break down to a sourced stub to start.[25][26][27]Cptnono (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Pooley (Ebola Patent)[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this person other than the fact that they were infected with Ebola, which has happened to many people. Nothing is given in this article that might indicate something notable about his infection(which is possible, as with Thomas Eric Duncan, the first diagnosed in the US). 331dot (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read it soon, I have a source - he is the first person from the UK! And there are a lot of secondary sources. Mistoop (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources is not the problem, following this logic, we would have to create the following pages.

Brother Miguel Pajares, First Spanish person to get infected in Liberia and medivaced to Spain..
Brother Manuel García Viejo, Second Spanish person to get infected and medivaced to Spain: also possible source of infection for Teresa Romero.
Teresa Romero, First Spanish person to get infected on Spanish soil.
Silje Lehne Michalsen, First Norwegian to get infected.
Felix Baez, First Cuban Doctor to get infected.

Now Note:: All of these listed above are medical staff, working in West Africa at the same or prior time to William Pooley. Most of these have a higher Notoriety than William, yet there is no dedicated page for them... However if any of the above pages had to exist and come up for deletion.. My vote would be Delete, there is very little more than a few lines that one could write for each one in relation to the Ebola virus, the issue that makes them famous...... Gremlinsa (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#United Kingdom per WP:BLP1E & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Pooley (Ebola patient). Qwfp (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the article that's already tagged as "too long, consider splitting it into sub articles" Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly if and when that three-sentence subsubsection or the subsection or section of which it forms part is split off into a separate article, the redirect should then be retargeted. Qwfp (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It comes down to did they receive independent coverage? William Pooley certainly did. Not just as a patient, but also a nurse who was keen to get back out to Africa again. The nomination here seems to be more on the basis of WP:NOTHING ON FOX NEWS and yet another WP "If it isn't American, it didn't happen." Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would still hold my opinion if this page involved an American, Canadian, Russian, or Martian. Nationality isn't the basis of my opinion; the fact that hundreds if not thousands of people have gotten Ebola is. Not everyone who gets Ebola merits an article. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you're not seeking to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Eric Duncan, a Liberian who died from Ebola in the USA. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I proposed this there was no reference to him being the first British person to be diagnosed with Ebola in the article; I would submit that Duncan is a little different because he was diagnosed in the United States after he left Africa while this man was diagnosed in Africa and taken to the United Kingdom. If he was diagnosed in the UK I would support keeping the page. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between first person to be diagnosed in a new country and first person to catch it in that country. However for two people who caught Ebola in Africa, travelled outside and were then treated there I see very little difference as to whether they were diagnosed before or after travelling.

Incidentally, he was cited on Radio 4 news again yesterday. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per User:Qwfp and previous AFD. CommanderLinx (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa#United Kingdom. Whilst I appreciate Per Andy's point about the length of the proposed target, this is clearly a case of WP:BLP1E as was reflected in the previous AfD. In the light of that it should not be a separate article. Philg88 ^♦talk 20:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Not an appropriate search term. —teb728 t c 03:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If keep, move to and history-merge with older page William Pooley (Ebola patient) (for misspelling of "patient"). WP:BLP1E = "Subjects notable only for one event", but this Ebola epidemic is one very big and notable event, particularly if it becomes a global pandemic. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ebola epidemic is certainly big and notable, but Mr. Pooley is but a small BLP1E player in the overall scale of things. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Do we really need an article for every single person who's got Ebola... No, Fails BLP1E. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But he wa sthe first British person to get Ebola. We have the first US-ian, so why not teh first person from the UK? It seems a question of Wikipedia refusing to belive non-american stuff, and don't tell me he doesn't have media coverage... GOOGLE HIS NAME. I mean, Eric Duncan (or whoever the first american was) got to have an article - its just Wikipedia's bias. Mistoop (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err I'm from the UK and It's nothing to do whether he's from the UK or not .... We don't keep articles from everyone from individual countries who have Ebola, I had no idea there was an article on someone and to be honest if that was nommed I'd sure as hell !vote Delete .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Mistoop - WP:Otherstuffexists is not a valid reason for keeping this article. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in regards to Thomas Eric Duncan, That article was shifted back and forth several times, and for some time it to redirected back to the USA Ebola article, up until the point where: *he infected others, * he died, *family suing hospital, etc.. Fighting this battle now will not help your case in the near future... SO... My advice.. Leave this one to redirect back to the relevant section on the West Africa Ebola page, and keep an eye on the news for any further developments on this specific case, if there are any effects of his Ebola infection, you may be able to revive this page.. Gremlinsa (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no point in creating a page for each person who contracted Ebola while working in Africa. BrianGroen (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for both. articles withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Lyons[edit]

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

Self-published novel series with no indication of notability. I've checked for independent reliable sources and have not found any. Also nominating The Forges of Dawn, the first novel in the series. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything (newspaper articles, reviews in reliable sources, etc) to suggest that this series is ultimately notable enough for an article. I wish the author well, but right now the series just doesn't pass notability guidelines and given the lack of Ghits in general, I don't see anything that suggests it ever will. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually these could probably be speedied, as the article creator wrote " if you guys wanna delete the page go ahead. I'm not going to fight with you. Do whatever." on the article's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too wish the author well, and from the plot outline would say that it might well stand a better chance than most of the stuff at CreateSpace and other self-publishing places. (Mind you, good writing can save an improbable plot, and a good plot can be ruined by bad writing. Bad writing and bad plot = disaster.) However, as yet there appear to be no reliable independent sources. Peridon (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 housekeeping non-admin closure: 15:52, 19 November 2014 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Police culture in America (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rjqy/2000/00000017/00000003/art00006) czar ♔ 04:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Police culture in America[edit]

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

Article is duplication of information in Blue Code of Silence EBY (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not so sure. Blue Code of Silence appears to be about a particular kind of culture/corruption while Police Culture In America looks like it's trying to be about police culture more broadly. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved article to appropriate capitalization. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the only thing I've seen on that exact phrase is a Bill Maher rant. He says that the police are militarized in the US and have in certain areas, effectively created a police-militaristic coup of leadership. Wiki has Police brutality as well - would this fit? I am not sure this is real.EBY (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XVII International Chopin Piano Competition[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:N. The only reference on the page links to the hosts website and a search through Google has brought up nothing in terms of reliable, third party sources. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found a few sources describing the preliminary competitions, for example the Australian qualifier and the Paris qualifier and the One American qualifier and Another American qualifier, the Canadian qualifier etc. The fact that this is a regularly scheduled, notable event, it does not seem unreasonable that Wikipedia should have an article about the event. We have plenty of sources to flesh it out, the competition itself is generally considered notable, as Wikipedia has an article on the event itself in general, International Chopin Piano Competition. While currently there's not much about the event, it seems like a waste of time to delete an article for a few months, only to recreate it later. --Jayron32 02:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then would it be ok to move it into draft space until the event has occurred? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do what you gotta do. I wouldn't object, but now that you've started this AFD, there's going to be a lot of people who want to comment and who would be short circuited by your pre-emptive action. Moving this to a draft would be fine by me, but you've just invited all of Wikipedia to comment. You should probably wait to see what others say. I don't have any objection, but I am one out of 47,396,238 users at Wikipedia, so my opinion only counts as much as any one of them. Perhaps you should wait until this AFD is complete before making any unilateral action. I'd support that idea, however. --Jayron32 02:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have some comments regarding the deletion. In my world this is a definite keeper. Here's why:

1. References
Alas, the only reference comes from the hosts website. But as with most future competitions, this sadly usually is the case. As we go into 2015, many of the enlisted qualifiers will appear. Trust me. Then we will have several sources (the host, home pages of the performers, newspapers, classical websites, etc). The fact that the arranger is the only source is simply because no one has qualified yet. So patience, please.

2. The size of the event
In classical music there are probably thousands of different music competitions in the world. In piano, probably around a hundred (not counting the tiny ones). Some of them are quite new, some quite old, some arranged every single year, and others more or less when the host "get around to it". In Norway alone (just over 5 million people) we have several piano competitions, most notable the new International Edvard Grieg Piano Competition (don't look for it on Wikipedia - it doesn't exist). There are bunch of competitions in honor of pianists, such as the Gould, the Richter, the Rubinstein, etc. Counting the legendary ones, you have in Russia the Tchaikovsky, in Hungary the Liszt, in USA the Van Cliburn. But the truly epic one is in Warsaw: Here you have a competition that takes place every five years, and has done so since 1955. It is in the memory of the "pianist's composer", and is one of very few competitions where performers must play exclusively pieces of Chopin. Some of the greatest pianists (here we can argue, of course!) have set foot in the Chopin: Argerich, Pollini, Zimerman, Uchida - the list goes on. It's an event in not only classical piano music, but in classical music as a whole.

3. To conclude
What I find truly interesting about the deletion issue, is that this never ever would occurred in the case of sports. No one would even dare to put a deletion tag for (say) the FIFA World Cup 2022. Or even the 2026 Winter Olympics. And neither should they. This is Wikipedia, and we all know that these huge events will take place in these respective future years. But now you're suddenly telling me that the Chopin competition in one - 1 - years time doesn't deserve an article? Because of the missing third party sources? In the wiki article for the 2026 Winter Olympics we find lots of sources, sure. But what are they all saying? Simply that this and that country have placed this and that bid for the competition. In the Chopin Competition the sources are lacking because they aren't needed. The event always takes place in Warsaw every five years … because it always takes place in Warsaw every five years.

Best regards, Thuen (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the comments raised above:

1 - My personal opinion is that, if the consensus here is keep, then I will propose that the page be moved into your draft space until such times as these sources you have claimed to appear, appear (I believe it should have been kept there in the first place, but that is largely irrelevant given its introduction into main space). It is, however, worth noting that the pages for earlier competitions have only the host page as their source. What happened to the references from the home pages of performers, etc etc?

2 - The size of the event is irrelevant as far as its inclusion on Wikipedia is concerned (see WP:GNG)

3 - The sources are needed if this article is to stay. Simple as that. As to comparisons between the World Cup and this competition as far as deletion goes, you can discuss it further on my talk page if you wish, but I will not be drawn into debate over it at this venue, where it has no relevance to the discussion.

--Skamecrazy123 (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you do what you (and others) choose. I have said what I wanted to say, but after reading the WP:GNG you do make a point. I'll rewrite the article after the event takes place next year (with complete final score, sources, etc). Regards, Thuen (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons we keep articles on near-future sporting competitions and political elections. This is one of the most notable music competitions and we may be confident it will take place as scheduled. It's precisely the kind of event that WP:CRYSTAL specifies as appropriate for a Wikipedia article. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the sources say otherwise. I have found no reliable third party sources at present, and none of the articles on previous competitions provide any. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This remark from Jayron32's talk page made me LOL: "Unless you can see into the future and tell me whether or not this competition will definitely go ahead in October 2015, I don't see how it could be anything other than speculation at this point." Speculation? From one of the most legendary music competitions in the world, arranged every 5 years since 1955? Then please let me allow an experiment, Mr Skamecrazy123: I hereby predict the year 2015 will never happen, because it has not happened yet. There you go! I'm still waiting for those reliable third party sources. Thuen (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was so legendary, then where are all the sources? Why is it only being promoted by the host? As for the sources, I have had no luck in finding any, hence the deletion request. If you can do any better, then I suggest you do so, because sitting here and trying to mock me won't do anything to help. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intension in mocking anyone, this is simply an outburst from a lover of classical music (especially piano). I'll make a real effort in answering some of your questions: A good place would be to start with the previous competition, held in 2010. As for the competition's status as a total, Gramophone (founded 1923) writes: "The competition, one of the oldest and most prestigious in the world, was launched in 1927 and is now held every five years." Source: Gramophone Oct 5th 2010. The magazine wrote an article after the competition was finished: Winners. An article from BBC Music Magazine the same year: Avdeeva wins. The article states: "The International Chopin Piano Competition was founded in 1927, and – after the interruption of World War II – has been held regularly every five years since 1955." I can't answer for the sloppy wiki articles about the previous competitions, but promise to do my very best for the 2015 version. Regards Thuen (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep One of the major events in classical music. ( Perhaps it shouldnt be seen as a strict comparison, but considering the we keep in some more locally popular fields, this is a matter of necessary balance. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verbatim as DGG, I'm rather disappointed that this was even nominated. User:Skamecrazy123 do you not have access to a university database or suscriber magazine access? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi:No I don't, and neither does anyone else if the state of sources for this article and others related to it are anything to go by. And before you complain about me jumping straight to the deletion process, I used the resources available to me to try and find sources. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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