< 16 November	18 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Wylde[edit]

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

Appears to have a promising future but does not currently meet the notability requirements for biographies. Pichpich (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most if not all sources there are blog-type material, Other than those listed I can't find any shred of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:NACTOR at this point. No WP:RS to indicate otherwise. "a promising future" == WP:TOOSOON... --Jersey92 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. None of these citations are blogs. The New York Times, Amazon, Local Paper, IMDB. This page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.75.213.10 (talk • contribs)

IMDb is a database that lists (or tries to list) everyone who's ever appeared on screen, no matter how insignificant their part is. Moreover, it's considered unreliable since most content is user-submitted. The NYTimes link is useless since it's basically a page saying "we at the NYTimes have no idea who Kaitlyn Wylde is, though we see that she's listed at the All Movie Guide". As for the Amazon link, the biographical section is user-submitted so it doesn't count as third-party, reliable coverage which is what we're looking for. Pichpich (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What I'm seeing at IMDB is an obscure starlet with a handful of "Young Woman"/"Waitress"/uncredited bit parts. Just being on IMDB means nothing; my brother-in-law, who worked as an extra on a handful of films, has an IMDB page. Having a few pages published out of a Kindle bucketshop isn't impressive either: the sales rank on Kindle of her poetry pamphlet doesn't crack Amazon's top hundred thousand. Nha Trang 22:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the above, it was created by an editor with a likely conflict of interest if "TC Books" is "Thought Catalog". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What notability there might be is not apparent. -- Hoary (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The New York Times source doesn't say anything about her. --Artene50 (talk) 01:10, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Lunn[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP, does not appear to meet GNG or ANYBIO. Would have used BLP PROD but too old. J04n(talk page) 23:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 23:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 23:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a few passing mentions on Google Books, but nothing significant enough to meet GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Makes no strong claim of notability, and cites exactly zero reliable sources. I especially got a great laugh out of the way this article highlights the fact that "she is a recipient of the Canadian Commemorative Medal" as if that meant something — for the record, that was a one-off program of community volunteer recognition which the Canadian government undertook in 1992 to mark Canada's 125th anniversary, for which anybody could send anybody's name to their local MP and then that second anybody, of which there were tens of thousands nationwide and I was one of them, would get a medallion and a "thank you for being involved in your community" form letter. Sure, it's a nice thing to have, but it doesn't mean you've earned a place in an encyclopedia — and unfortunately, nothing else here means that either. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 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 01:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melchizedek in the Urantia Book[edit]

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

A fringe theory on Melchizedek which is only attested to by fringe proponents and therefore fails our notability criterion for articles about fringe theories. (See WP:FRIND.) jps (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and as failing due to WP:FORK. This is the sort of article that is likely to become the repository of trivia and edit warring, which we don't need right now. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear promotion of utterly non-notable fringe beliefs. No RS sources. Article fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this article in 2011, but only to remove such fringe material from the important article Melchizedek. Please note that also section Melchizedek#The Urantia Book of Article Melchizedek shall be deleted. A ntv (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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 all. Secret ^account 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ternevig (bus stop)[edit]

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

I'm relatively confident that individual bus stops aren't notable unless there's a corner of Wikipedia notability policy I'm missing. Sam Walton (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally bundling;

Vågsbygd senter (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vågsbygd kirke (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Augelandsbukta (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Storenes (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Smierbrygga (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kjos gård (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vågsbygd bedehus (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andøyakrysset (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gamle Andøyveien (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Møvig skole (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andøyakrysset (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spinneren (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Krodden (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flekkerøy (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Voie/Steindalen (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Henrik Wergelands gate (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lumberkrysset (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trekanten (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tinghuset (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gyldengården (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Festningsgata/Tolbodgata (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jernbanebrua (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bellevue (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kolsdalen (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hannevika (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rådhuset (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gyldengården (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tolbodgata nedre (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vestre Strandgate (bus stop) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

- Comment: The closing admin should take a look at the rest of the articles created by Amss125 after this AfD was started. Sam Walton (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Content is to the effect of, "This is a bus stop in Norway" and no refs ~ R.T.G 21:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Non-notable. Sjö (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not sure they quite fit into any speedy deletion categories, but it could easily start snowing in here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I'm sorry the author has gone to some much work on these, but what's next? Every single bus stop in London, NYC and Tokyo? for starters? ubiquity (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot - I fail to see the point in these at all!, I appreciate some stops may be notable & what not but these sure as hell aren't. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete all. I can't think of a situation where any of these pages could be considered notable; this is pure WP:INDISCRIMINATE stuff. Dea db eef 02:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not important, you can't write much about them and they're not notable. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 17:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete all per every comment above. In addition these articles appear to fail the often overlooked requirement that stub articles should have some reasonable hope of expansion into encyclopedic articles. I can't see that here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No indication of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Not notable at all — BranStark (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, we don't do bus stops. Geschichte (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'em Shame so much work has apparently gone into them, but the fact of a bus stop's existence does not (unlike a place or a secondary school) make it notable. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete all per consensus.

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Graham (soccer player)[edit]

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

Members of minor sports leagues are not inherently notable, and no other assertion of notability is made. Once source, not reliable. —Swpb^talk 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Additionally nothing to indicate any achievements during high school / college to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 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 01:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DB9D9[edit]

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

This article about a now-defunct band would need a major rewrite to address WP:TONE and WP:POV issues. Recently, a member of the band, Eric Recourt (talk · contribs) has been mostly editing the article, including inserting external links to his personal Facebook page and deleting part of the original lead, leaving just "Eric Recourt was the driving force behind db9d9 [...]" at the beginning.

The citations are very non-precise. The only cited source that I could find online [1] is short, subjective and looks like self-published -- not a useful source to build an article on. The last archived copy of industrialmusic.com from 2005 does not appear to say anything about DB9D9. "Dark Music Webzine" does not seem to exist any more and might be a self-published source too. Outburn Magazine's past issues can still be purchased online, but the citation doesn't say which issue it's from, and their website does not mention DB9D9. "San Diego Union Tribune" is now U-T San Diego, they have recent articles available online, but I could not find the blurb or DB9D9 using Google and their site search.

Given that this article is in such a state and good sources aren't easily accessible, I think it's unlikely it'll ever be fixed and thus I propose it for deletion. -- intgr [talk] 19:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spamtastic is solvable; spamtastic and unnotable per WP:GNG and WP:NBAND isn't. No significant coverage in reliable sources present themselves either in the article or in my searches. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability now or likely in the future--Mevagiss (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - I can't philosophically prove non-notability, but it would need demolition and rewriting. The discography suggests notability is possible, if those aren't actually self-releases - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 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.

Julien Blanc[edit]

The result was Keep - he is clearly notable as one of few people to be excluded from Australia and UK for his activities. There are multiple newspaper and other "straight" news stories (and not merely op.eds and other such polemics). The alleged poor state of the article is not a reason to delete, though it may be a reason to improve the article. The alleged infamy and bad character of the individual concerned is also not a reason to delete. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article is only based on recent news and highly biased. Paulkroka (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2014‎ (UTC) — Paulkroka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Multiple sources from news organisations around the world suggest that Julien Blanc is likely to be notable for some time to come, whether or not his career turns out to be sustainable in the long term. He has had his visa revoked in one country (Australia) after only a few weeks in the spotlight and is now informally blocked from entering several others. The situation in Canada and the UK is currently unclear, but in the UK, it now involves our senior politicians, as it did in Australia. That he should have had such an impact in such a short space of time, with a large number of reliable sources, is unusual.

As an end to the 'pick-up artist' phenomenon is not in sight, contributors to media sources international are likely to refer to Julien Blanc for the foreseeable future, even if campaigners in several countries succeed in him being refused an entry visa. As the two principal issues are the nature of his instruction to men who wish to date/seduce women and whether he is a suitable person to be admitted to overseas jurisdictions, Mr Blanc has passed out of the realms of WP:BLP1E

I think Julien Blanc's notability has been established. Philip Cross (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This is not about notability. Wikipedia is NOT the news. The article is currently a collection of citations of biased news articles from the last two weeks. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. Paulkroka (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. See WP:DISCUSSAFD. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This two-day old article should be improved rather than deleted. Subject passes WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT. See WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality on how to improve the article's neutrality; bias can be addressed by rewriting passages. Wikipedia policy does not object to basing articles on recent news/events. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Per Philip Cross and 82.136.210.153. Paulkroka's argument that news articles used as sources in this article are "biased" is not persuasive: as of this writing, the article has 41 sources from news organizations in multiple countries, including such well-regarded news organizations as The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Age — just to name a few — which fulfill the qualifications of being reliable published sources. That they tell a similar story of Julien Blanc's controversiality is not in itself an indication of bias: Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy does not require an article to present all possible points of view but rather to present "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" — thus, if there are reliable published sources which present a different view of Blanc's controversiality, then the proper avenue is to introduce properly source information from those sources (if any, in fact, exist), rather than simply to decry the supposed "bias" of reliable sources with which an editor personally disagrees.

Paulroka's argument that "this is not about notability" is also not persuasive. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, the involvement of senior government officials in both Australia and the UK indicate not only that Blanc's notability has expanded beyond the pickup artist "movement" and controversies about its relation to issues of sexual violence and racism, but into the realm of government policy, which is likely to have an effect on government policies in multiple nations for years to come — as is discussed in the source that led me to this article — today's broadcast from the Public Radio International program "The World" — "Britain debates banning American 'pick-up artist' Julien Blanc from entering the country".

This article could be improved by adding additional biographical information about Julien Blanc to put his activities into some kind of biographical context.

While anyone can edit Wikipedia, I also want to note that user Paulroka appears to have created a Wikipedia account only today, and his only contributions thus far have been to advocate for deletion of this article. — Yksin (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually add contribution without an account. I created the account since otherwise I would not have been able to start the call for deletion. Paulkroka (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think any issues of one-eventism are over-ridden by the sheer weight and depth of coverage. Added to that is the involvement of political figures in the UK and Australia (and not just low-ranking figures either, Cabinet ministers), which puts him further over the notability threshold. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Depth of coverage is irrelevant. What matters is whether issues with regard to the person persists. This is not known since the coverage is only recent. Recentism par excellence. Mootros (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremist activist groups, major news corporations, and politically motivated politicians, are using Julien as a scapegoat, for their own special interest. These special interest include raising political influence by taking down a so called, "international rapist", creating fabricated headlines for increase viewer numbers, creating a reason to financially support extremist activist groups, creating political headlines, drama, the list goes on of why these parties would largely play an active role in accusing Julien. They have extremely skewed the facts leaving a highly negative connotation of who Julien Blac is as a person, evidence used to condemn Julien was taken completely out of its original context, they continue to pursue Julien even after proof of major miss uses in evidence. Wikipedia is about the facts, not information taken from bias media sources that was just copy and pasted. The page of Julien Blanc must be intensely improved upon, or completely deleted due to the bias nature of news sources. Podikimosky (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Podikimosky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved your comments, Podikimosky, because it is normal to add them in chronological order. Philip Cross (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lot of claims about "bias" there, but again: all the sources cited for the article meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable published sources. If there are reliable published sources which present other points of view about Julien Blanc or his methods, or which substantiate your assertions about the "special interest" or motivations of Blanc's critics or of the news media which have been reporting on him, then it would improve the article (in line with Wikipedia policies about neutral point of view) to add information based on those sources (properly cited). At the moment, though, all I see are unsupported assertions, nor have you cited any Wikipedia policies to support your position. — Yksin (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While anyone can edit Wikipedia, I want to note that user Podikimosky appears to have created a Wikipedia account only today, and his or her only contributions thus far have been to advocate for deletion of this article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of this page is biased against Julien, and a majority of the content comes from the past few days. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Redflorist (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recentism par excellence! Mootros (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, albeit for all the wrong reasons. Deb (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not a likeable figure, who people may not think is needed in a encyclopedia, i must vote keep as is the wide coverage in multiple sources, including Forbes/Time. Plus one of the few if not the only person banned from entering countries for something other then criminal charges/political views. The state of the article can be improved though. Comparable to Zoe Quinn and her coverage i think. GuzzyG (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is heavily biased and reads as though it is a news article written by extremist feminists, as it draws information from news sources, which are deemed to be inaccurate by many. I would vote for the article to be kept if it didn't state all the media bulls*** as fact. They should be stated as controversy. Heavy use of the phrase 'according to' would be appropriate. Otherwise this article has no place in wikipedia. Here are some resources from the other side for people who want to keep the article and make it neutral. http://g00.se/truth-behind-julien-blanc/ , http://www.rsdnation.com/node/551104 , http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1411/17/nday.04.html Edit: It would be more suitable to create an article for this event, as opposed to a biolgraphy. This article does not meet the guidelines WP:BLP1E in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.112.229 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC) — 213.7.112.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I moved (and signed) your contribution, 213.7.112.229, because it is normal to add them in chronological order. While anyone can edit Wikipedia, I want to note that editor 213.7.112.229's only two contributions thus far have been 1 minor edit of the article that is subject of this discussion and 1 edit to advocate for deletion of said article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I'm not an experienced editor (I've written articles from other IPs, but not much) however I use wikipedia a lot and am aware of the general guidelines for encyclopedia articles and specifically wikipedia, so I feel I have the right to comment on what is wrong with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.112.229 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 213.7.112.229, I signed your follow-up comment. In future, it would be helpful if you'd remember to sign your posts by typing in four tildes in at the end. Thanks. — Yksin (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Controversy is not part of what should be in an encyclopedia. It should display facts and objective views, and does not objectively say anything about Julien Blanc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.51.39 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC) — 27.32.51.39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I moved (and signed) your contribution, 27.32.51.39, because it is normal to add them in chronological order. While anyone can edit Wikipedia, I want to note that editor 27.32.51.39's only contributions thus far have been to advocate for deletion of this article. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Various participants in this discussion have few or no other edits outside this topic. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The calls for deletion seem to be because the article is one sided and not very good, rather than because the subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Improvement would be a better option.Stainless316 (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The only sources are a collection of biased news articles driven by his opponents. Consider: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper. AndySBlair (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2014 (GMT) -- this pre-struck !vote was actually added by 81.149.136.134 (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC) -- user AndySBlair doesn`t exist. Ivanvector (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 81.149.136.134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Article is a summary of events that have happened in the past few days and biased articles. It is not a true representation of the person and his life and portrays Jullien in a bad light deforming his character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.96.142 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

85.211.96.142 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep and improve - He has been subject of news reports on multiple continents. He is notable enough to warrant an article, even if that notability is negative in nature. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 20:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. Coverage from major news sources on multiple continents. Yes, it's negative coverage; we don't only write about nice people. --GRuban (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is based on facts / articles which were taken totally out of context. They slander Julien Blanc and the name of Real Social Dynamics. The article is also extremely biased and offensive against Julien.— 185.44.151.208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC).Dylanfromthenorth (talk)[reply]
Keep. He really is in the news all over the world, unambiguously meeting notability, and there really are a lot of people protesting him, backed up by indisputable primary and secondary sources. That's the end of the story to the question of deletion - the answer must be "no", the article should exist. Now as for content, by all means if people think something's imbalanced, they can be feel free to contribute to the editing process. But it's hardly like there's just been one biased editor dominating the process - there is a collective process underway with many editors. And hey, the more voices, the better the result. :) -- Rei (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Putative bias is a reason to improve the article, not a rationale for deleting it. The subject clearly meets the GNG. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My, but there are a lot of WP:SPAs here. Subject is clearly notable for his controversial views on the subject of attraction (putting it generously), and this notability is demonstrated by having been barred entry by a country and the target of protests in several others. Issues about neutrality can be solved with editing, but we don't delete articles just because they're about bad people. Ivanvector (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shirley Phelps-Roper, whom I think is a person of similar notability, has an article, so this guy should be notable enough. Don't WP:DEMOLISH the house while it's still being built. 206.188.87.3 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we're not a newspaper, That's all I'm saying!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Whilst I'm 100% glad this tool's banned from the UK and believe this country's a better place without him ... I shouldn't let my personal opinions interfere with !voting... No matter what I think of him he's still notable (unfortunately!), So I'll have to say Keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is clearly notable with multiple coverage in reliable sources. The article is now semi-protected and has been rewritten from a neutral point of view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable and subject of widespread coverage. Latest BBC article here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's not famous and his profession is fueling more potential rape cases, by giving out ill advised advise to men about how to 'pick up a women'. How can you possibly give a Wikipedia account to this vile man documenting what he has done, Which in the eyes of many people is wrong, Heck he's even barred from the UK now. Please also consider Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper.'.88.111.115.241 (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 88.111.115.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't just have articles on nice people I'm afraid; even the bad guys get one if they meet the notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, I get what you mean 88.111.115.241 (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this guy's ideas, either, but I'm fine with him having an article, on the principle that the right way to fight bad information is with good information. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG per the ref list Avono (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert5101945 added this comment to this discussion's talk page: "Keep Julien Blanc is a character of note, all be it for all the wrong reasons. He has much media interest most negative regarding his abusive approach to women. He promotes this approach to others charging them for his advice. Generally he has a negative attitude toward women. Wiki has many pages relating to the wise and good. I see no reason to delete the opposite Robert5101945 (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)" moved from talk by Ivanvector (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC) — Robert5101945 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep As one of the few people who've "been banned from the UK", he's clearly notable, even if it's not for reasons we might like. I don't like the man or what he does, but he is clearly worthy of an article. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep controversial figure who has received a lot of press coverage in reliable sources, and passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. As mentioned above few people get banned from a country for non-criminal reasons. This is Paul (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple jurisdictions banning him from performing or from even entering their countries is extremely unusual, usually something reserved for a few terrorists or a few political activists. As this is so unusual, he is clearly notable.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable enough to me, based on reading the news today. If the pickup artist and seduction communities don't have a popular face, they should, and he's likely to be (and stay) it. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so long as we are very careful to follow BLP guidelines. The fact that he is singled out for exclusion from several contries is unusual and notable. Jonathunder (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the visa refusals by themselves show notability. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is notable for being banned from more than one country, without actual criminal convictions. Likely to be referred to in future cases of people being refused visas. All the references to his activities come from reputable sources. Just because some people don't like what this entry says, that is no reason to delete it. nagoyablue (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well sourced with independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is likely to only increase his notoriety for some time and the news stories have generated interest in this topic which is coaching men to date women. At the moment there isn't a lot of public information available and I think this Wiki page will be sought after for information for quite some time to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.251.185 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved (and signed) your contribution, 110.175.251.185, because it is normal to add them in chronological order. While anyone can edit Wikipedia, I want to note that 110.175.251.185 has made only one edit outside this topic. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the person has received coverage in multiple countries at different times as a result of outrage at his seminars. Passes WP:GNG and not a WP:BLP1E case. This keep vote should not be interpreted as approval or endorsement of Blanc or his methods, which I abhor. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It is absurd to delete the article about a clearly notable person. Gui le Roi (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage across at least three continents. Whatever problems our lords and masters at Wikipediocracy have with BLPs of the hopefully inconsequential, but per edict WP:Notable, they're going to have to be fixed by some BLP-regulating mechanism other than AfD. By policy, this odious guy is considered notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article should be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. This is an important subject and there has been significant media debate and coverage, along with government involvement. That most of the news articles are negative is not relevant. Wikimandia (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable and has numerous sources. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I wrote a version of this under the Sandbox before the original writer wrote this version. He used some of my work in this page. I say it is a keep for the following reason: meets Wikipedia's notability requirement. It also meets the 3 pillars. From the looks of it, the deletes are mostly because the article seems single sided. However, *all* news mentions about Julien Blanc is single sided. This guy wasn't notable until the event, hence why its single sided. The only notable thing that was pro-Blanc was his apology. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've done the vast majority of additional editing on the article for the past two days, and have found a couple of WP:VERIFY sources that are less condemnatory of Blanc. I'm continuing to search for such sources in the interest of WP:NPOV. Anyone who can help with that please get onto the article's talk page. I urge people to remember this is an encyclopedia, and to leave their opinions about "odiousness" or "admirability" at the coat check stand. — Yksin (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - he's notable, even though for disreputable things. ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I removed many of the biased sources before posting this. Much of the writing still suffers from recentism, but this problem is correctable over time. Overall, I think the article is notable enough to stay. Connor Behan (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could use the attention of an editor experienced in writing neutral biographies on controversial figures, but I don't see how the notability of this person can be challenged. There's a whole stack of citations from reliable sources. Potential issues related to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM can be solved through the normal editing process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable individual. Article is well sourced and informative. -FASTILY 02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Controversial person, subject to protests recently. Expelled and banned from Australia (a decision taken at ministerial level). Well referenced. --Dmol (talk) 08:26, 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) 01:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Rondón[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player that fails WP:GNG. Recently signed with Braves, but still lacks sources and notability for even a re-direct. Yankees10 18:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised that a guy who was once on the Yankees' 40 man roster doesn't have even the coverage to make it onto a "minor league players" page, but there's nothing to justify it. No prejudice against recreating it if sources do get produced, of course. – Muboshgu ([[User talk:#top|talk]]) 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a merge on this one since it wasnt that long ago that he was on the 40 man roster, but there really is no content here at all.. even for a merge you need more on someone other than their name, their handedness and their age. Spanneraol (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly my thought. I don't see any pieces from the NY newspapers (NYT, NY Post, Daily News) or AJC. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability since he has not played in the majors. Does not have WP:RS to establish notability outside of that. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Muboshgu....William 12:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there really is nothing to find for sources. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Atlanta Braves minor league players. There's [2] and [3]. Probably more, I didn't check very far on Google. 07:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:44, 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 - no real assertion of notability here. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Father to Son: An Odyssey[edit]

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

Fails general notability guidelines. Play is unpublished, has been produced once, at a high school. Google search for title finds just local event listings and coverage at school's own website. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish the writer well, but this just isn't notable enough for an article. The performance wasn't of any particular note per Wikipedia's guidelines and the play has yet to be published or performed anywhere else and gained the necessary coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There's also a copy in the userspace at User:Hipersonithink/sandbox. I hate to sound bite-y, but I really doubt that this will pass notability guidelines anywhere in the near future to where it'd really merit being retained in the userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Not one reference in the article. I did find this one source ^[1] but it does not seem like a reliable source nor does it say much besides the times that it is playing. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:32, 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 01:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bel Canto Summer School[edit]

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

No evidence of notability of the Summer School. References appear to be for the style of singing, not for the school. Edit summary for PROD removal seemed to be a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED - David Biddulph (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator, references are to style of singing, not to program. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not demonstrated by (any) sources. ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable event. Author does not seem to understand WP:NOTINHERITED. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, and anyway most of the article is about the singing style, not the School. Maproom (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as PRODder. The event could merit a brief mention at Royal Irish Academy of Music, while the singing style is well covered at Bel canto : Noyster (talk), 12:46, 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 01:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Negi[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to have significant coverage in 'multiple' secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore not meeting the standard of inclusion (even WP:ANYBIO) and qualifies for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sources in the article now are of unclear reliability to me: I've never heard of any of them. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:SINGER and WP:ENTERTAINER. @Bearian: The citations used in the article are iffy at best, however I found though that he is actually mentioned in reliable sources as a singer, and more RS are found through using WP:INDAFD. And while such as Bollywood Life writing "The singers Dev Negi and Shipra Goyal have given a good Punjabi track" seem to show that his work has received some positive notice, other found RS simply verify the body of his work and do not discuss it in detail. I found no awards to meet WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Then, delete per lacking WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 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 01:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saptaswa Basu[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, appears to function as WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO -- in addition sourcing is quite poor to IMDB, primary sources, etc. Appears to be a film director of some non-notable short films. — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - Cirt hits the nail on the head. Does not meet notability requirements. None of the info in the short bio section is sourced at all. There are 3 imdb and 1 youtube references, which do not meet the WP:RS requirements. The last 3 are invalid links. One of the Statesman links is also no good... and the other is spotty at best. The best citation is the realbollywood reference, and that only mentions him in passing. Onel5969 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed with Onel, Cirt covered everything very well. No assertion of notability at this time, and it doesn't appear that there are any unused sourced that can change that. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 14:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS and WP:V for a BLP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is over two years since the article was created. The lack of any significant coverage in secondary sources before or, especially, since means that the article fails WP:GNG. If SB's career takes off in the future the article can always be restored and updated. MarnetteD|Talk 00:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An up-and-coming director that has yet to satisfy the GNG. Can be recreated later, when more sources exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 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. Closing per WP:SNOW. "Speedy incubate" is possibly an option, but the keeps are quite overwhelming here. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Khairpur bus crash[edit]

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

as much as this event is tragic, article was created on the same day and is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 56 deaths, plenty of coverage. If this happened in London or New York, it would be ITN material. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not much has changed, it seems, with regards to the users who hate any new event having an article. It is far too early to pull the NOTNEWS article out, and we're talking about an incident that resulted in 56 deaths. That factoid on its own is generally considered enough for notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bloomberg coverage in the article already asserts it is the worst road accident in Pakistan for a year, so it is not merely any accident. There is New York Daily News mention, other. It would be nice to know what is some standard for notability of accidents to get articles included into Category:Bus accidents in Pakistan (and similar other categories for other countries), but this one accident seems individually notable. A good alternative, however, would be to create List of Pakistani bus accidents and to include this as one item in it. That could be done separately from this AFD, however, and the article could be merged and redirected by any editor without need for another AFD, just as part of regular editing. --do ncr am 23:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as received worldwide coverage, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so did Obama's recent visit to Beijing, should we create an article for that too? LibStar (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick you know exactly what I mean!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Incubate for two weeks Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and wp:notability requires that the topic has received attention from the world at large over a period of time. There is no urgency to claim that this topic should be covered as a part of history. Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a remotely policy based !vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is a policy, and I've added a Wikilink to the !vote to this effect. Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 56 deaths is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An incredible amount of coverage satisfying WP:GNG and to suggest an incident with 56 deaths won't be "enduring" as WP:NOTNEWS indicates is simply willful ignorance. The primary examples of non-notable topics WP:NOTNEWS states are " routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which of course this topic is nothing of a sort. A classic example of WP:NOTNEWS being misapplied. --Oakshade (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recurring sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:45, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Winter Solstice Alignment Cave in Manchester, Kentucky[edit]

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

Fails general notability guideline; no significant coverage in reliable sources. Drm310 (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply fringe, no coverage in RS, COI obviously. I see claims about more Old World alphabets on the FB page - related to [4]. Love the claim that a circle supposedly found on that stone is the symbol of Ra. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

almost a speedy delete no reliable sources, only source provided is Facebook link. LibStar (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of dubious coherence of the article in its current form and lack of notability. I looked at the, um, article, and most of our mini-stubs are both more intelligible and more substantive than this one. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Self-promotional nonsense. Hensley et al should have used this article for the barest fig-leaf of sourcing. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't really explain what it is, fails GNG, no reliable sources. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources; classic example of fringe archaeoastronomy. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources for this, the existing sources are Facebook the links for which should be removed. I will do some further research and if I turn up any sources I will post them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FRINGE lacking WP:RS. -- 120.23.185.71 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm particularly amused by the claim of "Cherokee Indian Syllabary engraved," given that this script was only invented in the 1820s. -- 120.23.185.71 (talk) 22:55, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenAccess[edit]

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

Blatant unsourced advert. Includes zero sources and a lot of promotional language and content. CorporateM (Talk) 16:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Blatantly false nomination: plenty of sources both in the article now and zero due diligence from the nominator. The language is factual description of the EDA community effort for design tool interoperability. -M.Altenmann >t 16:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Contrary to nominator's claim, article is reliably sourced and passes WP:ORG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - books and industry standards are acceptable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll be in the minority here, but I don't see anything that makes this software or its 'coalition' notable. The few references are reliable, but not strong. The list of links at the bottom looks promotional. Most of the wiki pages listed there have not been updated since 2011, so it isn't clear if this is still a live project. In addition, the text of the article seems to have been taken directly from [5] which has a copyright notice on it. WP:COPYVIO LaMona (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- if it were a dead project, it is still of historical interest, since it made a major noise within EDA industry and attempted to address a real problem. and once again, independent references are abound, but ~~nobody gives a fuck~~ the apathy in wikipedia is on the rise. However a quick ~~google check easily shows there are contributions to the project~~ check shows that the statement "Most of the wiki pages listed there have not been updated" is both an exaggerrating and false: there are only two wikies, and one of them has "recent changes" dated 2014. All other listed webpages also have many updates dated by 2014.
- I appreciate efforts to clean wikipedia from unreliable texts created in early days, but guys, if you are not an expert in the particular industry, then please exercise due diligence befor jumping to conclusions. We are not discussing minor pokemon of aspiring pornstarlets; this is an effort of major players in EDA industry. It is sad public don't recognize these names. Here is a quiz: (1) Who manufactures chips for iphones? (11 points) (2) Will such company take part in a bullshit project? (2 points)
- Also, copyvio is ~~easily fixable~~ fixed; thanks for checking. this is not some scientific discovery or philosophical visions. -M.Altenmann >t 16:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing copyvio. If this is a "well-known" project, then it would be a good idea to support that with better sources. Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, and one is not required to be an "expert in a particular industry" to know if an article is well-supported. The sources really do not support the above claims, and, to be honest, the article needs some TLC in terms of style and simple clarity. Perhaps one of the enthusiasts here could take that on? LaMona (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which claims and which sources? One is required to be an expert to make a judgement on whether some subject is worth researching for wikipedia. I used to be an enthusiast, but it was 10 years ago. I agree the article is not well supported. But your requirement of "better sources" is kinda strange. A book and a major conference not good enough? I threw in a couple of wrenches merely to halt this afd; I no longer care much to develop the subject. If more deletionists peep in, I will throw in more refs; two per voter-deleter. Otherwise the page is good enough for me: IMO the major asset of wikipedia is cross-linking of information, including interlanguage. The texts themselves 80% suck. -M.Altenmann >t 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs work, for sure, but a quick book search reveals the topic has the appropriate coverage to deserve an article. I've added a book source for the basic definition to help it on its way. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Semprun[edit]

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

Biography with zero notability claims. Should really be speedied as A7, but a menagerie of SPAs has cropped up to remove any such tags. Kolbasz (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.

Totally disagree. It is not a C.V., it is a biography of a member of one of the most memorable families in Spain and he is a businessman / sports man. You can find his name in the database of the Official site of United States Polo Association. uspolo.org (Member search)

. SpainCulture ^talk 09:20, 20 November 2014

(UTC)

Delete No real claims of notabiliy, references aren't really references. Notability doesn't come from being a member of the "Unisted States of American Polo Association". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; reads like a CV. Kierzek (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above me - Reads more like a CV plus the refereces aren't references - 2 refs are wiki articles, so no evidence of notability –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 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 01:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BodyGuardz[edit]

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

Sources used appear to be mostly primary or of very low quality. Company only has 39 employees and does not appear to have any particular claim to notability. CorporateM (Talk) 14:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single one of the sources is reliable by the consensus definition of the word. May merit an article someday, but not today. —Swpb^talk 15:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promotional text just gilding a not-as-yet sufficiently notable enterprise (WP:NBUSINESS). Quis separabit? 15:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; it does read like promo text. Kierzek (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Nothing more than promotional. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:14, 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. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax and WP:CSD#G4 repost of deleted material. I have replaced it with a protected redirect to The Cantos. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cantos of Ezra Pound[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first page of a Google page pretty much tells me that this is a hoax albeit not one blatant enough for G3). The fact that I can find absolutely nothing for this film, despite the article claiming several celebrity appearances by people such as Ke$ha, Scarlett Johansen, and a budget of $400,000,000 is startling. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appeared that this was already AfD'd and speedied yesterday. I was not aware of the previous discussion, so if anyone likes, feel free to tag it as G3. Also, the page would probably need a pinch of salt. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:12, 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) 06:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual laws[edit]

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

Amusing? Of course. But encyclopedic? Of course not. First, what makes a law, "unusual"? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --►Cekli 829 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. --►Cekli 829 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as has been done with this sort of article ∞ times before. The topic can never meet POV, and is unencyclopedic almost by definition. —Swpb^talk 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as inherently WP:OR. Fenix down (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well it's certainly an unusual article! .... No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: after rewriting as an article about the literature concerning weird laws; see this Snopes article and the literature cited there. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article needs to be developed. Need to improve. --►Cekli 829 05:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's amusing indeed, but the main problem with the article, even if it did get more items: define what makes a law "unusual"? Should it be an exhaustive list? What could be unusual to one culture may not be unusual in another. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't see any way an article like this could ever be made encyclopedic. For one thing, an "unusual" law in one place or one culture or one period in history may be perfectly normal in another, as Naruto points out. Plus there is the sampling problem. Right now there is only one "weird law" mentioned, the Carmel dress code; there is also a paragraph about voting restrictions on immigrants but it doesn't explain what is strange or unusual about them. If kept, the article is likely to continue as it is: random paragraphs about laws that somebody somewhere thought were strange. --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The topic undeniably gets coverage in reliable sources. For example, [6], [7], [8], and [9]. However, this article from the Wall Street Journal calls a gun control law "unusual". This highlights the problematic nature of the topic: nobody would consider a standard gun control law to be "unusual" in the sense of "walking backward on Sunday is illegal on Main Street from 6pm to midnight". In light of that, I would agree that any article based on this topic is likely to degenerate into an indiscriminate list of examples selected through editor bias. However, I'm unwilling to outright say that it should be deleted just because it's a bad idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose to merge this with another article, Dumb laws. Both articles are in deplorable state, but clearly the topic gets attention and coverage from secondary sources, so it warrants an article on WP. The title "unsual laws" might be better than "dumb laws", but in any case multiple articles about such similar topics should be merged. If the decision is to merge, I am willing to do a cleanup of the combined articles to bring it to an at least decent, readable state.--Reinoutr (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, Dumb laws should also be nominated for deletion. It has the same problems as the current one, including WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Only a few "dumb laws" are mentioned (including some which are mischaracterized and others which are myths), and the references are mostly to non-reliable sources (such as dumblaws.com, which is basically advertising for a law firm), and the article title is POV/not encyclopedic, and, and, and. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attention to closing admin: that article is now also on AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dumb laws (2nd nomination)). Whatever the decision, I would recommend a single decision for both articles. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merging the "dumb laws" content with this one. (Or rather, since there is so little content in this article compared to the Dumb Laws one, just rename the other one with this article's title and keep). As for the main basis of many of the objections and the delete opinions, laws are the product of man - so you might as well say that ALL laws are specific to one place or one culture or one period in history and so should be excluded. However, the general concept of having civil and criminal and corporate laws is firmly established in the Western world, and so the perception of what the Western World thinks of as "unusual" in relation to ITS established concept is a valid one. And of course unusual or bizarre or laughable or extreme laws have been written about in numerous sources. As for the other main objection - if the basis for a law's inclusion in this article is that a source has to have written about the law in a way that points out its unusual or extreme nature, then editor bias will be minimized. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article of no encyclopedic importance. I nod to delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikicology (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename to a list article with careful inclusion criteria - It seems like between this and dumb laws (which is a more definite delete) there's an opportunity for a List of unusual laws (or perhaps List of unusual laws in the United States or List of unusual city and state laws in the United States) for laws notable (via multiple reliable sources, I would presume) for being unusual, counterintuitive, anachronistic, etc. Kind of like how we have List of video games notable for negative reception rather than Video games that suck. The particulars could be considered on the list talk page. An article about unusual laws is more problematic, though, as it will inevitably either turn into a list or run rampant with synthesis. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: I hope this doesn't veer too off-topic for AfD, but I went ahead and created Draft:List of unusual laws and seeded it with just a couple examples. Some comments on the talk page to start a discussion about scope and sourcing requirements. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is when another editor says, "I don't think they are unusual". Then there is an inherent OR issue that can't really be resolved because of the essentially subjective nature of the article title. Fenix down (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - What editors think is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources think. James500 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list of unusual laws is perfectly legitimate provided, in each case, there is a reliable source that expressly calls the enactment or rule of law in question "unusual" or some close synonym. Consensus for this was established during a discussion at the "village pump" forum concerning the list of weird buildings. James500 (talk) 04:42, 28 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 01:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Schlutt[edit]

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

Article about a German male model, this is entirely a biography created from his website, online agency profiles and non-reliable fansites. He is founder and editor of the Kaltblut magazine, but I can't find any significant, reliable coverage about him on Google.de - fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLPs especially need reliable sources, and this has none. —Swpb^talk 15:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's notability, then it's not apparent from the article. (And ditto for the related "Unfaithful (2009 film)".) -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 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 01:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Kumar (administrator)[edit]

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

A very junior level administrative service official. Has no references. Fails WP:GNG Uncletomwood (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just a minor bureaucrat. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I don't even see his name mentioned in the only reference's URL. So, he might not be what the article says he is either. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:10, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crescendo (band)[edit]

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

Originally deleted as a PROD and re-created by an editor who, based on his username, is likely a band member. No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Giant Snowman 13:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 13:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll put conflict of interest issues aside, other than to say that the article creator (Newrobotexplorers) has the name as one of the band's EPs. This often doesn't matter provided that the band meets the notability threshold and the article is neutrally written. Unfortunately, the band doesn't meet the notability thrsehold. Of the links in the article, one is a radio show tracklisting which is dead link anyway; the next is a local radio show that doesn't mention them, the next is their Myspace page, and the next is their record company's Bandcamp page. My searches failed to turn up anything better, so it looks like they ain't there yet. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references providing evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NM and WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using WP to attempt to generate notability--Mevagiss (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but I can't see anything in the article that says this band is anything more than the typical WP:GARAGE band at this time, let alone sources proving otherwise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orange technology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a neologism without notability. The article has plenty of references, but many of them don't mention "Orange technology" and of those that do few appear to be independent from professor Jhing-Fa and his university. AfD'd once before. Sjö (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

mcic2011: This is not neologism. Please search IEEE Xplorer database by using the keyword "icot" (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.jsp?newsearch=true&queryText=icot)

There is concept that is not limited to one university (National Cheng Kung Univeristy, Taiwan) only. The second annual conference already took place in Xian, China (please search "ICOT 2014" in Google).

More related reports are here.

The report at I-Shou University: http://www.isu.edu.tw/upload/81201/76/news/postfile_67371.pdf
The report at NATIONAL TAIWAN SCIENCE EDUCATION CENTER: www.ntsec.gov.tw/FileAtt.ashx?id=2220
The report at Tajen University: cs.tajen.edu.tw/ezfiles/26/1026/img/873/1.pdf
The report at National United University: http://www.nuu.edu.tw/UIPWeb/wSite/ct?xItem=90544&ctNode=9185&mp=23

Besides, the government of Taiwan (Ministry of Science and Technology) already supports the issue. For example,

There are many magazines reporting this concept in Taiwan. If convenient, please search Google and use machine translation [10]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from some very poorly cited papers by Wang et al., I'm not seeing any coverage of this WP:NEO in any WP:RS. I also see that this is a recreation of a previously deleted article. -- 120.17.108.248 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The language should not be the key criterion to delete articles in Wiki. If it is convenient for you to search the orange technology in Traditional Chinese, you will find many citations. My humble opinion is English citations may be not the only criterion to judge whether an article is WP:NEO, and so is the area (i.e., countries). The concept is formed in Taiwan, as people though aging population deserves more attention.

Regarding the re-creation of the deletion of the previous page, that is because the concept itself is not wrong. Different wiki volunteers have different opinions. Some allow the article to be reserved. As time changes, some of new wiki volunteers raise this issue again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcic2011 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per reviewing links posted by the anon.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 09:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This google search may also provide more guidance.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 09:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of those Google hits are relevant to the topic of the article -- they are simply unrelated uses of the phrase. -- 120.21.78.131 (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but that's just insulting to me. Of what benefit would it be to me (or anyone, really) to just post links to unrelated to the topic? I posted those links with the expectation and HOPE that someone would click on them to get more information on the topic. If I didn't know better, I would think you were joking.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 05:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What possible reason could you have to post links to companies that just happen to have "Orange Technology" in their name? Because that's what you did. The top 40 Google hits on your search were all of that nature. As far as I'm concerned, the absence of this topic in that list of Google hits suggests lack of notability more than anything else. -- 120.23.81.27 (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. The Google hits that search brings up are utterly unrelated to the aubject of the article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:28, 20 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 09:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the concerns raised in the previous AFD have not been addressed - a Google Scholar search and the references provided still demonstrate that the term is primarily used by the academic who created it. Furthermore, the talkpage of the creator clearly demonstrates an interest in promoting the term, even when it goes against the feelings of the editing community. I think this source puts it best: "Prof. Jhing-Fa Wang Promotes Orange Technology". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Suriel1981. Basie (talk) 21:02, 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 keep. Good discussion, with the weight of consensus leaning towards keeping the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Farhady[edit]

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

There's no indication as to why this person is notable. Fails WP:GNG. References are written by the source - although they're not even backing up anything since 'ref' tags weren't used. Possible self promotion/autobiography. st170e^talk 02:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShulMaven (talk • contribs)
Keep. The appropriate guidelines are WP:NACADEMICS. In this case you can search in Google Scholar to find a considerable number of academic publications, including works cited more than 100 times. So the notability requirements are satisfied easily. Zero^talk 23:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the WP:NACADEMICS guidelines, a "considerable number of articles" is not one of the criteria. The criteria are having made a significant impact on their field, above and beyond normal academic research. Therefore one would need to find verifiable resources that the person has been so designated based on awards, special appointments, or the statements of their colleagues. The main criterion is "effect on a field." I don't see that here. LaMona (talk) 21:45, 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, → Call me Hahc21 19:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see lots of citations to his articles on Google scholar - literally hundreds of times. His top article was cited over 500 times. How could that not have an effect? Bearian (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basic criterion for an academic being an authority in his subject is the extent to which others use his work, andthis is measured roughly by the number of citations. Most of the other facets of WP:PROF, such as awards, are just shortcuts to this. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and that is stated explicitly in notes on WP:NACADEMIC. In addition, his book on language education cited over 500 times indicates success on criterion 4 as well. Zero^talk 09:45, 17 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 09:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's no point in this resisting. Notability was the only reason provided for deletion, but the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC are met easily. Zero^talk 10:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Zero0000: Have you considered the opinion of User:LaMona? Perhaps they will revisit the discussion, if they receive notification per their user name being linked in my comment here. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the specific notes at WP:NACADEMIC say "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." He has over 1000 citations, the majority apparently in academic sources. A large number of serious books on second language acquisition cite his work (search for his name at google books). He isn't Albert Einstein, but he is notable enough for an article. Zero^talk 21:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Can you spell out his impact on the field? Or point to others who do? Also note that of the 1000 citations, over half are to what appears to be a textbook. If that book, though, changed somehow the course of linguistics, then we have notability. Being cited 500+ times isn't itself proof of notability. I was able to find a work in the field cited over 9,000 times (and no, it's not by Chomsky - his works are cited tens of thousands of times). The upshot is that it's hard to be quantitative about academic achievement, which is why you have to find inventions, awards, etc. LaMona (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His co-authored book has received significant reviews in TESOL Quarterly, Language in Society, and the Modern Language Journal, and has therefore "...played a major role in co-creating .... a significant or well-known work .... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." per WP:AUTHOR 3. I am not actually convinced by the argument based on pure citation counts vs. PROF 1, particularly as typically measured by h-index, but I think AUTHOR 3 suffices. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:07, 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 Speedy delete G4 as re-created content. This AfD is not a place to challenge the outcome of previous deletion discussion about nearly identical article. Note that the article history came convoluted due to page move during this AfD and this was also (accidentally) deleted as CSD G8 as main author blanked it, so please be careful if reviewing the logs. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 10:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed bin Khaled Al Juffali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not Notable - not every car collector is notable. Further, this article was previously voted to be deleted (check the prior nomination) therefore this would also qualify for deletion as a previously deleted article. I can't tell if the text is the same, since I can't see the deleted article, but I doubt any text was changed. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

keep there's plenty of hits on google and he is unique in his ability and deliverance in such car collections, especially at his age. Zigguzoo (talk) 20:00, 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 09:02, 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 ⨹ 19:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Pharmaceutical Technology[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 Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a translation of the German article, with the same references. However, I can find third-party references about the organization and its journal, [11] [12].

From my reading this is a professional/research organization in good standing; however, the article should be marked as needing references. LaMona (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable society publishing a high-impact value journal. As to the text, massive rewriting is undoubtedly required. Chhandama (talk) 09:39, 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 09:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As pointed out before: It is a notable scientific society. It is publishing a scientific journal with an impact factor, therefore the journal itself is notable. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 13:45, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacox (surname)[edit]

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

Insufficient notability -- just directory listings DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I have no clue what counts as notability in names. I did find passing mentions in several books (1, 2, 3), etymological dictionaries mostly. JTdale ^Talk 11:28, 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 08:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a surname page. There are three people who are sufficiently notable, as well as several others of questionable suitability, one or more of whom ~~may~~ will show up for Afd. I've removed some claims, e.g. no Jacox is listed as a signer of the Declaration of Independence,[13] nor can I find anything that says William Jacox was called "The Father of the Navy". Also, rename as Jacox and add a hatnote for Jacox, West Virginia and possibly Jacox Elementary School in the Norfolk Public Schools. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is actually better than the majority of "surname" articles, having some cited background information. Clarityfiend's editing has cut out the dross. Re: the nominator's concerns, it seems to be widely accepted that "surname" pages like this are allowable, providing any information is cited and any entries in the name list link to a valid article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:00, 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 ⨹ 02:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Haase[edit]

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

A notable (?) wikipedian / academician / minor politician biography. It has next to no references, certainly nothing to suggest the subject got any attention from media for any of his roles. Google Scholar profile at [14] does not seem, I believe, to warrant passing Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but there are better experts than me who can comment on this. Being a member of a (minor) party certainly is not enough to make him pass the "elected politicians/officeholders" threshold. Ego Hunter (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — A quick look at the German version of this biography shows many additional sources and seem to clearly indicate notability. I don't speak German but I'm under the impression that Die Zeit, Der Spiegel, and Cicero (magazine) are among the most reliable sources in the German language and are globally recognized. Based on my read of the automatic translations, it sure reads like all three have published profiles and/or interviews with the subject. I've added these references to the article. The English article was in a bad shape, but a simple look at the German version would have shown that it could be improved and kept. Ego Hunter is right that this probably does not meet WP:PROF#1 but clearly does meet the WP:GNG.

This nomination is by an acknowledged WP:SOCK WP:SPA created to nominate biographies of Wikipedians and Wikimedians for deletion. I've detailed some reasons for concern on the nominator's talk page and, after their pattern of editing was recognized, the nominator has admitted and defended their campaign and use of a WP:SOCK on their user page. So far, 5/5 closed AfDs by this nom have been decisions to keep and several have trivially uncovered reliable sources, major awards, etc. Because I've seen no evidence that this nominator is following WP:BEFORE, this smells me to as WP:POINTy behavior and I think this is a borderline speedy keep under WP:SK#2b. —mako ๛ 05:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we have sufficient WP:GNG notability then we don't need WP:PROF. The Zeit story doesn't really have much in-depth coverage of the subject — it is more an interview with him about something else — but the Spiegel profile is convincing. And the Taz and Cicero pieces seem nontrivial enough in their coverage of the subject (and his blog) that I think we have the "multiple sources" part of GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 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 ⨹ 19:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Heron[edit]

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

Article about a sculptor sourced only to an online CV. I can't see any independent news coverage about him. Speedy deletion template was removed with no explanation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST as far as I can see. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 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 01:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some more info and references. I did find an art dealer's catalog where one of his sculptures was listed at a price of 20K-30K pounds, which seems considerable, but I wasn't sure it would be a viable reference. LaMona (talk) 01:18, 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, Wifione ^Message 08:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to meet WP:ARTIST 4: "The person's work... has become a significant monument" due to creating "Armagh City's first commissioned public artwork" (per the BBC). Has created several other publicly-displayed sculptures too, as evidenced by the article. It's a little borderline, but I'm inclined to favour retention in this case. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:09, 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. Despite the small amount of participation in the discussion, there is a clear consensus to delete, and it is not necessary to let it run for a full second week as the article qualifies for A7 speedy deletion anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Frampton[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My search for sources yielded nothing to suggest this musician meets the notability guidelines set out either WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Creator of article has a username that implies affiliation. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep; both the creator and the main contributor in fact... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:06, 11 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, Wifione ^Message 08:12, 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 00:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steffi Brillowski[edit]

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

No indication of what makes her notable - she is just another prison guard. If there was something she was infamous for I would change my mind Gbawden (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedily. Would have tagged it as such if you hadn't posted it here. Lots of people were involved in WW2; very few of them need an article. The fact that she is/was a female guard in WW2 is irrelevant and doesn't itself confer any notability. Dea db eef 07:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Poeticbent's rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christel Bankewitz. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG & WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 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 00:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua B Bolton[edit]

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

1) Incorrect spelling of name, 2) no other Joshua B. Boltons on English Wikipedia (note we have a Josh Bolton but with the middle initial W). Completely unnecessary would-be dab page. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless. Dea db eef 07:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless dab. No other Joshua B Bolten/Boltons on here. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 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 00:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zarzov brothers[edit]

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

Recently tagged as a hoax, I agree given lack of RS coverage (except for [15], but even if they exist most of the information in the article appears to have been made up). The "smoking gun" here characterizing this as a hoax is that almost all Google results are Wikipedia mirrors. There's apparently also a business in Australia called Zarzov Brothers [16] which appears to be unrelated to these "radio hosts". Everymorning talk to me 04:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 04:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 04:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N policy (not enough sources). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If it can't be established that it's not a hoax, it's clearly gotta go. —Swpb^talk 15:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--Mevagiss (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage to prove notability. Note that these are common joke names used by some amateur Aussie comedians - Blewy Zarzoff = Blew his arse off, Bernie Zarzoff = Burnt his arse off, and plenty more brothers with similar bad puns for names. The-Pope (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shipwire[edit]

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

Non notable company, and promotional article. The refs, although some are in usually reliable places, seem to amount to well-placed slightly disguised PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mentions / PR instead of proper WP:RS; fails Wikipedia:Notability (companies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 79#SavvyMedia - probably paid editing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Piotrus and Oiyarbepsy. Sources connected to the subject count for nothing when trying to establish notability, and the indication of paid editing is disturbing. —Swpb^talk 15:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Himezawa[edit]

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

Although there are 21 citations, almost all of them are to the article-subject's website, blogs, forums and other low-quality sources. This source looks to be in German maybe? I have skimmed it and the only mention of Himezawa appears to be in the caption of the image. CorporateM (Talk) 02:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reliability of the sources is very poor; I am not seeing anything from mainstream sources - blogs, primary sources, etc. At best, it's the "too soon", at worst it's another vanity piece of a social media wannabe-star. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources demonstrating that the subject meets the WP:BIO guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article seems to rise to the level of RS. I tried a Google.de search and all I found were also non-reliable or self-generated sources (aside from a notice some have been removed under the Right to be Forgotten thing). It looks like this person is known in a rather small niche and has not had any significant coverage in mainstream media. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 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. Wizardman 03:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Totten[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor league player. Previous afd closed as keep due to the old guidelines saying his playing in Venezuela was notable.. No longer the case. Spanneraol (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:01, 17 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 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 36 year old who had a decently long, but not notable, playing career. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the guy I was thinking of when I said participation in the Caribbean Series had been rationale to keep. Who knew it was three years old. Anyway, I'm going to apply a little flex to WP:BASE/N and throw a keep his way, but I fully anticipate being the only keep here. Alex (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was also from before the guidelines were changed and tightened.. I dont think the "national team" qualifier was in there previously. And like i said before, that Caribbean Series (like the asian series) is a club level competition that does not involve national teams so it doesnt meet the requirements of WP:BASE/N. Spanneraol (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said before, guidelines are guidelines which means they have flexibility. Alex (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Series doesn't count for BASE/N, and nor should it. This person has no sourcing, and your reasoning has no logic. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today I flushed a public toilet that someone hadn't flushed earlier. Constantly telling people they're wrong and that they make no sense and what they say has no logic to it makes just as much sense as what I just said. Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make you right. Alex (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He also has a couple other unique/semi-notable things going for him: He was suspended for steroids and he spent 4 years at Triple-A. I found these links for those interested: [17], [18], [19], [20]. Alex (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable despite Caribbean Series.--Yankees10 22:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability--Mevagiss (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable despite Caribbean Series. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 07:55, 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 00:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Pinango[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor league baseball player, no longer active with no chance to make the majors Spanneraol (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Yankees10 02:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Nine-year minor league veteran, three years at Triple-A, starting pitcher. You'd think he'd have at least some coverage. But there wasn't a ton. Still, I dredged up enough to merit a weak delete, rather than an outright 'delete': [21], [22], [23], [24] Alex (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 07:50, 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. Michig (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Casilla[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--Yankees10 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP with no RS, and no more notability than the last time it was deleted. Salt if recreated again. —Swpb^talk 15:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So Alex recreated this based on a deleted article, using only his BR page as a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much, if you're a reliever in the minors, you're probably not going to get too much action in the majors. Or any coverage, anywhere. Alex (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete To be fair to Alex, he was the one who nominated this article for deletion the first time. I doubt he was trying to be defiant by re-creating it. Nevertheless, the article is an effectively unsourced BLP about a minor leaguer who's never played above AA. Google does not indicate that Casilla could pass GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable BLP that fails WP:GNG. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:13, 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khalilah Rose[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and is a promotional article written by a paid editor. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is true that the article was written but a paid editor but it has now been well worked over and the person has sufficient notability. article is fine. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR and not appropriate
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In response to this nomination for deletion, i would like to note that although i am a paid editor, the article is not promotional because it is written factually and in compliance with Wikipedia rules for neutrality. Secondly, the subject complies with the rules for notability WP:MUSICBIO as follows: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries YES, Khalilah fulfils this criteria as she has been featured in multiple Caribbean newspapers^[2] and has been on the cover of 2 Caribbean Magazines; Jus Jah ^[3] and on L3 Magazine^[4] 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart ^[5] 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city: YES She has been recognized as the new face of roots reggae and is the current face of YEROC eyewear ^[6], ^[7] 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award: Khalilah Rose has been nominated for 5 Linkage Reggae Music Awards and won 1 ^[8] ^[9] 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc YES Khalilah Rose's song was used in a Law and Order episode^[10] According to Wikipedia WP:MUSICBIO "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" As i have just proven, Khalilah Rose more than meets just 1 of the criteria and as such should not be the subject of a nomination for deletion. Thank you Lilianarice (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] ^ http://events.jacksonville.com/event/father-son-odyssey-0 ^ http://newtelegraphonline.com/jamaica-khalilah-rose-comes-peace-unity/ ^ http://jamaica-star.com/thestar/20131218/ent/ent10.html ^ http://issuu.com/l3magazine/docs/l3magazine___june_2012___no._012_final ^ Khalilah Rose blowing up in Argentina Jamaica Gleaner Apr 4, 2013 ^ http://jamaica-star.com/thestar/20130308/ent/ent5.html ^ http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130318/ent/ent3.html ^ Multiple nominations for Roots Reggae singer Khalilah Rose Dancehall Reggae World ^ Khalilah Rose on a musical mission Jamaica Online Star December 24, 2012 ^ http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/entertainment/Khalilah-Rose-eyes-Law-and-Order_14082268 Comment I think the "logic" of the person who was paid to create this article is questionable. For example, there has been no single on a national music chart. There was a single on a specialized chart for one radio station. There is no evidence that she is the most prominent representative of anything. There is no evidence that the Linkage Reggae Music Award is major. Also, there is no reliable evidence that a song was included in Law & Order, and just being brief incidental music rather than a theme song or a performance would not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. I am just getting started. This is the problem with paid editors, they create extra work for the unpaid editors, in this case by distorting reality to align with their financial incentives. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] very very unhelpful. hatting Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR and not appropriate

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In response to this nomination for deletion, i would like to note that although i am a paid editor, the article is not promotional because it is written factually and in compliance with Wikipedia rules for neutrality. Secondly, the subject complies with the rules for notability WP:MUSICBIO as follows: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries YES, Khalilah fulfils this criteria as she has been featured in multiple Caribbean newspapers^[2] and has been on the cover of 2 Caribbean Magazines; Jus Jah ^[3] and on L3 Magazine^[4] 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart ^[5] 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city: YES She has been recognized as the new face of roots reggae and is the current face of YEROC eyewear ^[6], ^[7] 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award: Khalilah Rose has been nominated for 5 Linkage Reggae Music Awards and won 1 ^[8] ^[9] 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc YES Khalilah Rose's song was used in a Law and Order episode^[10]

According to Wikipedia WP:MUSICBIO "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" As i have just proven, Khalilah Rose more than meets just 1 of the criteria and as such should not be the subject of a nomination for deletion. Thank you Lilianarice (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the "logic" of the person who was paid to create this article is questionable. For example, there has been no single on a national music chart. There was a single on a specialized chart for one radio station. There is no evidence that she is the most prominent representative of anything. There is no evidence that the Linkage Reggae Music Award is major. Also, there is no reliable evidence that a song was included in Law & Order, and just being brief incidental music rather than a theme song or a performance would not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. I am just getting started. This is the problem with paid editors, they create extra work for the unpaid editors, in this case by distorting reality to align with their financial incentives. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

very very unhelpful. hatting Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my ignorance, i thought the idea of this project was for all users to respond and show proof for keeping the article. My first comment was tagged as WP: TLDR I have re-written this and reduced the words. 1. YES, Khalilah fulfills the criteria of notability as she has been featured in multiple Caribbean newspapers ^[1]

2. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city: YES She has signed on to represent YEROC Eyewear ^[2], ^[3] 3. Has won or been nominated for a major music award: Khalilah Rose has been nominated for 5 Linkage Reggae Music Awards and won 1 ^[4] ^[5] ThanksLilianarice (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promo crap that belongs elsewhere - There's plenty of ways to "advertise" a singer and this sure as hell isn't one of them. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline What I've found so far: The Music Industry Achievers award is a joke, with a website allowing you to place votes when voting ended in may, and they actually cancelled their 2014 awards program, something respectable shows only do in emergencies. I can't find an online presences for New York Reggae Awards or Linkage Music Awards, aside from some YouTube clips of the latter, and it seems odd for any kind of high profile award not to have its own website, which indicates to me that these awards are not high profile. The primary source, the Jamaican Star, describes her as an up-and-coming artist, and not even a household name in Jamaica. The 2011 Gleaner reference is similar, more of a human interest story. The 2013 Gleaner describes her as reaching number one on some radio charts in Argentina, so a decent notability claim. The Vision newspaper is an interview, so it doesn't speak to notability either way. So, I'm on the fence, a very borderline case. Give it a couple years, and she'll probably meet notability, but I don't think she's quite there yet. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm perhaps not as convinced as my colleague Jytdog but I can see where he's coming from. At the end of the day, though, this is just promotional nonsense, dressed up as a Wikipedia article. All of the biographical information is from a single local newspaper article of unknown provenance (without attribution) which, as pointed out above, describes her as "up-and-coming". If you're up-and-coming in your own backyard, you're unlikely to be notable to the extent that you'll meet our inclusion criteria. Gleaner is the Star with a different name (same company) - they are one source. I'm not convinced by any of the "awards". At the end of the day, this seems like an attempt to promote the subject rather than to build a Wikipedia article based on significant coverage from legitimate sources. I'm probably with Oiyarbepsy here - just WP:TOOSOON. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article by promotional editor who is continuing her promotional campaign here (and attempting a canvassing campaign as well). For example, there has been no single on a national music chart. There was a single on a specialized chart for one radio station. There is no evidence that she is the most prominent representative of anything. There is no evidence that the Linkage Reggae Music Award is major. Also, there is no reliable evidence that a song was included in Law & Order, and just being brief incidental music rather than a theme song or a performance would not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have not tried any canvassing campaign, i sent out a neutral invitation to those that edited the article so they could chime in their views. I understand your angst against me given that i misunderstood your "payment joke" as well as the vehement objections to paid editors however please do not misrepresent me in this and please judge the article on its own merits. The artist has been covered in both the Jamaica Gleaner and the The Jamaica Observer which are the country's oldest and second oldest national Publications. Other newspapers where she has been published like on the Jamaica Star are also owned by the Gleaner company so have that credibility. They are all legitimate sources given that they are the country's top newspapers. Additionally as the article i sourced shows, the artist has signed on to represent YEROC Eye-wear which is a reputable brand ref>http://jamaica-star.com/thestar/20130308/ent/ent5.html</ref>, ^[6] so yes she is a prominent representative of something Thank you Lilianarice (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://newtelegraphonline.com/jamaica-khalilah-rose-comes-peace-unity/
^ http://jamaica-star.com/thestar/20130308/ent/ent5.html
^ http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130318/ent/ent3.html
^ Multiple nominations for Roots Reggae singer Khalilah Rose Dancehall Reggae World
^ Khalilah Rose on a musical mission Jamaica Online Star December 24, 2012
^ http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130318/ent/ent3.html

Delete - per WP:ADMASQ, WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:MUSICBIO. ukexpat (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; while this article lacks reliable sources and general notability, this is also very one-sided and biased, as well as promotional.Epicgenius (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Putting the alleged paid editing aside, the coverage from Jamaica's two major national newspapers is probably enough to satisfy WP:GNG. In addition to the sources cited in the article, there are also these two: [25], [26]. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paid spam of the absolute worst kind. Wikipedia is not a means of advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite some concerns about the paid editing, the artist seems to meet the WP criteria defined in WP:MUSICBIO. There is multiple coverage of the artist in secondary sources and the music has received significant attention. The fact that she, or the newspapers in which she is mentioned, are not so much known amongst the mostly western public editing WP should not be of influence. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even the sources given [27] clearly state Rose is not yet a household name in Jamaica and another describes as rising .As pointed out by Oiyarbepsy the awards are not from a major or reputed organization.She clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO now even at best it is WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but in full, the source states "Although Rose is not yet a household name in Jamaica, her music has spread far beyond the shores of her island home. As a result, she has made numerous appearances on events in Europe, Africa, Brazil, Israel and North America.". I can see your point, but I am giving this one the benefit of the doubt for now. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had searched but could not find Reliable source about her Europe, South Africa, Brazil, Israel and North America Media about her all sources are Jamaican and even they only state she is a rising or upcoming singer and hence not notable at present .Anyway I leave to the closer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:40, 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. Michig (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine Miranda[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and is a promotional article written by a paid editor. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:23, 17 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 00:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as far as I can see, the paid editor (Lilianarice) has made 3 edits to the article, I'd hardly describe her as the 'article writer'. Most of the time she requested the edits on the article talkpage and another editor did the work, which is pretty much by the book. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of paid editing issues, the current sources are very weak, and if better sources are out there, I couldn't find them. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Yes, big COI problem. I've taken a lot of hype out of the article. I think the article subject does, just barely, pass WP:MUSICBIO, with two recordings on a major, or at least reasonably established, label. AllMusic verifies those recordings. He did place in a major music competition, again, just barely (score 7.00, cutoff 7.00). Close call. This is classical; everything is smaller and lower-key than in pop.John Nagle (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:In response to this nomination for deletion, the article does NOT fail WP:MUSICBIO because the rules are that A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria. Carmine Miranda does successfully meet those criteria in that:

1. He has been published 2 times in Fanfare Magazine [BACH: Six Cello Suites Fanfare Magazine Issue 36:5 (May/June 2013) May 1, 2013] which meets rule # 1: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works. Unfortunately you have to pay in order to access the articles however you can also read them on the artist's website for free.

2. Carmine has released 2 albums with 2 prominent recording labels Label:Centaur Records["Bach: 6 Cello Suites - Carmine Miranda | Awards". AllMusic. 2013-02-26. Retrieved 2014-05-21.] and Navona Records["Piatti: 12 Caprices for Solo Cello". AllMusic. 2014-10-14. Retrieved 2014-11-16.] which complies with rule #5: Has released two or more albums on a major record label

3. Carmine Miranda has fulfills the requirement of having won or placed in a major music competition [

Alhambra Competition Winners Display Remarkable Musicianship Lawrence Budmen] and the IBLA International Competition[2012 IBLA GRAND PRIZE Competitions Results IBLA International Competition July 30, 2012].so satisfies rule #9

Once again, i reiterated in regards to this competition that it is scored from 1 to 10 and the artists are judged individually to assess their skill. So a 7.0 is not "barely" making it when you consider that it merits an awards and many walked away with only mentions for participation. I only ended up editing the article after declaring COI because John Nagle wrote that he placed last in the competition which was not true or neutral These cited references should show you that the subject Carmine Miranda does fulfill notability requirements. Thank you Lilianarice (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry don't mean to keep commenting. Just want to provide more sources since Grayfell said he couldn't find any. Here are articles were Carmines's work has been reviewed or interviewed[Have Cello, Will Travel: A Chat with Carmine Miranda Seen and Heard International May 4, 2014]. Music in Cincinatti has done several articles of Carmine's work. [28] [29] [30]. Lastly Music web also reviewed his latest album.[31]. Please understand that the classical music scene is not as big as pop music and for cellist even more so. However, given this, Carmine does meet the notability requirements and his article can continue to be improved upon with time as he does more work. Thank you Lilianarice (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those might be usable, but most of them seem like Wikipedia:Bombardment. I didn't say I couldn't find any sources, I said I couldn't find any that were better than what's already there, which is still mostly true. Musicincincinnati.com appears to be a blog with one author and no editorial oversight. Allmusic is a routine listing which fails to establish notability. Are those labels classified as major? Maybe, but I think that's up for debate. Fanfare is significant but I'm not sure it's important enough to trump the article's other problems. Still, it's the only source that causes any second doubts. Neither Seen and Heard International, nor Musicweb International appear to me to be WP:RS. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promo crap that belongs elsewhere - There's plenty of ways to "advertise" a singer and this sure as hell isn't one of them. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Greyfell's analysis of sources and despite Lilianarice's longwinded (paid) promotionalism on this page. I would add that one of the main sources, from RMTV, is WP:UGC "based soley upon the information submitted to us by the artists and their representatives." Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the proponent's claims to the contrary, the article is very poorly sourced; a combination of local blog-style "my favourite song" type stuff and passing mentions of the subject in list of things that aren't enough to substantiate notability. The editor in question needs to stop editing articles where she has a conflict of interest. It isn't working. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to note that as the page stands right now i haven't really been able to make improvements in its "promotional" content or lack of sources. I only was able to add the new album and change the IBLA competition wording but couldn't do more since i have COI. I would like to work on improving the page and make it non-promotional as well as to add other citations such as the review by Naxos of America [32], and the one by Cleveland Talent Magazine [33]Lilianarice (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother - more un-attributed user-generated content and promotional advertising. I don't think either would be considered a reliable source. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO as has already been noted. Quis separabit? 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing and delete spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of WP:RS for this article. --Artene50 (talk) 01:22, 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.