The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 23:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Erb[edit]

James Erb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable. Quis separabit? 02:56, 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 03:08, 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 03:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be a case of WP:NOTAMEMORIAL and failing WP:NMUSIC as written. Ping me if more sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A quick Google search establishes that there are additional sources that make a stronger case for Erb's influence as choral conductor (founding director of the Richmond Symphony Chorus), arranger (Shenandoah and others -- the arrangement itself is notable in collegiate music), and musicologist (insights on Lasso and his peers) than made in this article. I strongly suggest giving a few days to establish and strengthen the article. Also, the article has existed for many years prior to Erb's death, so I would suggest that WP:NOTAMEMORIAL is specious here. The article wasn't created as a memorial, and threatening an established, albeit stubbed, article with deletion immediately after the subject's death seems unnecessarily churlish. -16:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjarrett (talk • contribs)
• Delete does not appear to pass our music guidelines. I know of no policy that prevents discussing an article after the subject's death or other life events. Indeed, if anything that's when reliable sources are most likely to appear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:54, 24 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, Kurykh (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mr Erb is a musicologist worthy of coverage on Wikipedia. I do not know what is gained by deleting his page. The most significant work of his life appears to be his compilation and publication of many of the motets of Orlando di Lasso. You can see one of his volumes of motets on Google Books: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zsuFLfxg_bwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Given that Wikipedia has pages on individual Katy Perry concert tours, Wikipedia can also, surely, have pages on musicologists who have contributed to the historical record. Syek88 (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Erb's choral arrangements are well known and frequently performed. His writings on Renaissance music, especially on Lasso (Garland, 1990), are widely cited. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty sources to establish notability, and a significant scholar and choral conductor. --Stfg (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Rms125a@hotmail.com, Piotrus, and Starblind: courtesy pings, in case you haven't seen the recent rationales czar ⨹ 02:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I changed my vote in light of claims of being widely cited, which makes him pass WP:PROF. A ping to User:Syek88, however: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid arguents; those Katy Perry concert tours pages should probably be nominated for deletion; we have way too much of the concert tours spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep V. Joe (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Valentinejoesmith: WP:NOTAVOTE, please note your vote is going to be discarded unless you care to provide for a proper rationale. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I added an in-depth source [1] via HighBeam with lots of biographical information that could be used to extent the article.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I struct my keep. The reference I cited was to Donald Erb (the James in the name led me to a misidentification). --I am One of Many (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Luxembourg Leaks. Whether or not the list was stolen is not very relevant (as long as it is not copyrighted). However, it is only a laundry list of company names that is readily available elsewhere on the web. Therefore, I do not see much use in a merge, either. However, some of the references may be useful in tha Luxembourg Leaks article, so I am closing this as "redirect", with the content available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of multinationals with disclosed tax agreements in Luxembourg[edit]

List of multinationals with disclosed tax agreements in Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list is based on stolen information. Argumento14 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for that statement? If "stolen", from what owner? Has that owner made known that it was "stolen"? Qexigator (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+The company's named may or may not welcome the publicity, but company information is regularly collected and made available by websites in the course of business. The information may have been confidential at the time, but is unlikely to be commercially sensitive by now. The existence of all forms of company business entity are a privilege under public law, and liable as such to scrutiny for creditworthiness, and generally in respect of commercial and other impact on others. If these companies were not savvy enough to know that the information could be liable to EU scrutiny, or otherwise become of interest to critics of "tax avoidance" etc., the firm involved in setting up the tax arrangements should have warned them, just as a physician or surgeon is expected to warn about the risks of treatment. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The title is misleading in several ways; it is a list of companies revealed in the Luxembourg Leaks. That information is neither stolen nor notable enough for its own article. An external link to a copy of the list could be added to the Leaks article, e.g. Business Insider (third reference in this list). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The information is notable. The article links to various sources that provide that list on their own webpage or that deal with the leaked documents of particular companies. On most websites the companies are allocated to an industry (energy, finance, health, ...) -- Neudabei (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure about notability, but if the list is kept, the unclassified alphabetic and links would be points in its favour. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Luxembourg Leaks. Avoid forks like plagues and clichės. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 19 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, Kurykh (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Luxembourg Leaks. Metamagician3000 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Even the list itself gives no reason why it might have encyclopedic value - just that it was published online. Since we aren't a web host, that isn't enough reason. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with WP:NOTWEBHOST rationale. Vrac (talk) 03:13, 5 December 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. czar ⨹ 02:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mkaï[edit]

Mkaï (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

His career might take off at some point but currently, he does not meet the notability requirements for biographies. Note however that Google searches are problematic since there's an Irish band named MKAI. Pichpich (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources that would suggest Mkaï meets any of the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The fact that the article itself says he's "aspiring to make a name for himself" gives away the fact that it's just too soon. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 21 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 22:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of attained notability, either in music or more generally. AllyD (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability, page looks very promotional. I'd have said wp:A7 Neonchameleon (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, like others said, no evidence of notability, and it looks promotional. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not have WP:RS that this subject passes WP:NMUSIC or WP:NMODEL. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO, no RS coverage, per everyone above. Everymorning talk to me 00:12, 30 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. Secret ^account 23:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venerable Lama Tharchin Rinpoche[edit]

Venerable Lama Tharchin Rinpoche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of this article is a living person who is the lama at a Kagyu Buddhist centre in France. Lama Tharchin Rinpoche (not to be confused with the famous and recently-deceased Nyingma and Rimé ngakpa and Dzogchen master Lama Tharchin Rinpoche, who is mentioned in many sources) - is not a notable figure and this page has remained an orphan since its creation. I nominated it for Speedy but there is one link to a French website that mentions his name (repeated twice), so it was declined. I did look for other sources and found a single passing mention in another person's biography that the Kagyu Lama in question had sent him to a Kagyu school for education. In short, the page seems hagiographical, cannot be confirmed with reliable sources, and is the equivalent of listing a local pastor on Wikipedia. I welcome your input, as the page's author did not reply - they appear not to be active on Wikipedia aside from this page and one on phowa:[2] Ogress _smash! 20:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 21 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 22:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is essentially an unsourced WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless sources can be found. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:22, 4 December 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. czar ⨹ 02:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joris Bert[edit]

Joris Bert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable baseball player.. He washed out of the U.S. leagues after 2 seasons in the Gulf Coast League. He did play with the France national baseball team in some European tournaments, but the quality of play there is not good and I wouldn't consider any of the European tournaments to be "major international competitions." I can see a small amount of coverage but not enough in my opinion. Spanneraol (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC) I'm going to withdraw this nomination on the basis of having been convinved by the arguments below and the preponderances of keep votes. Spanneraol (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That is a nice little piece by the paper of record, though. A bullpen catcher got kept for one SB Nation blog piece. GNG aside for now, BASE/N #2 says "...major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team." So, as it's written, being on a national team isn't enough. You have to play in a major tournament on that team. So the questions are (1) is the European Baseball Championship a "major tournament" for our definitions, and (2) what is " the Beijing tournament from 15 to 24 August 2007" referring to? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Beijing tournament was apparently something called the "Good Luck Beijing International baseball tournament"[3].. which certainly doesnt seem like a major tournament. Spanneraol (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. The European Baseball Championship isn't a major tournament by any definition relevant to Wikipedia. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He's a former minor-league player in the US, is that not notable enough? He should also be notable for being the first French player drafted in the US. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a former minor league player is not notable enough, no. Especially since he only played in the rookie leagues.Spanneraol (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The tournaments he played in are notable enough for this editor, so in my view he passes WP:BASE/N. Probably covered in quite a few articles, too. I'll check on that later. Alex (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Okay, sources. You say sources are sparse? I say otherwise. Right on Google's first page of returns for "Joris Bert," we get this full-length, New York Times feature article, he earned this mention on Mister-Baseball, considered one of the top sites for European baseball coverage. He earned mention in the book Baseball in Europe. He earned this full article from France's journal Liberation. Then there's this article from 'Le Parisien. And there's this. And this. These were all found within the first few pages of Google (the English one, no less!). And there's other stuff out there...French, Dutch, British, American. This guy earned international coverage. Alex (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whatever the status or quality of European baseball (which I would hope would be about on the level of rounders), this individual gets enough dedicated coverage in the French press to pass the general notability guideline. I know this because I clicked on the "Find sources" link above. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:48, 26 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 22:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 99.9% of minor league baseball players are not notable. The very rare ones who are the subject of coverage like an 18 paragraph article in the New York Times and a detailed profile in Liberation are notable. He is a rarity - a serious French baseball player drafted by an American team. Notability guidelines are guidelines, after all. They are not chiseled in stone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notability guidelines are guidelines, after all. They are not chiseled in stone." That's what I'm sayin'! Alex (talk) 05:44, 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 no consensus. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1st OTO Awards[edit]

1st OTO Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable awards event lacking non-trivial references. reddogsix (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th OTO Awards should be simultaneously considered; they are currently on 15 but these are the only other year-specific articles. Deadbeef 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 13:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge 1st and others listed by Deadbeef with OTO Awards. Deletion is not the appropriate course of action here. JT_dale^Talk~ 13:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I do not really agree with the statement that the awards event is not notable in the region as it represents the only annual awards show in Slovakia (SK), following the 2008 cancellation of the Aurel Awards, an equivalent to the U.S. Grammies, and the recent Slávik, which was a national music poll voted on mostly by the general public such as the People's Choice in U.S., and ceased in 2012 in SK. In other words, the TV-based OTOs that honor the work of popular culture, they now serve as the leading accolades given also to SK music artists as there is no any other annual award ceremony in the country (except for the so-called Slnko v sieti awards, or else SK film "Oscars" held on a biennial basis due to the small number of feature films produced over there each year). I will have a look at the articles to find out if I can supply further references myself. MiewEN (talk) 13:01, 21 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 21:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standardcotton[edit]

Standardcotton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable company. A run-of-the-mill company with run-of-the-mill local coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Placing among the finalists of a non-notable local award or being suggested as "perhaps the world's smallest online clothing store" (when there must be many one-person operations) is not evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 21 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 21:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I disagree with the nominator's statement that we have " run-of-the-mill local coverage". I'd characterize the coverage as worse than run-of-the mill. Also, the attribution of "smallest online clothing store" to the newspaper is misleading. It'a actually a quote from a jury member of the local contest. The sources that are provided fall well short of establishing notability, and I can find nothing myself that would indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 3 December 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. Secret ^account 23:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eleka Moore[edit]

Eleka Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recreated biography of a junior amateur golfer. Still no evidence of passing WP:NGOLF. BLPPROD and G4 speedy contested by a single-purpose IP. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and previous deletion discussion. Fails WP:GNG as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing appears to have changed since first AfD. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and as in prior AfD.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 04:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly Salt - delete per prior AfD and wp:SALT due to recreation. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Intended to be notable as a golfer but fails WP:NGOLF Nigej (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NGOLF. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. In either case delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:19, 29 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. Vote count it's a no consensus, policy based count its a clear delete close, every keep comment states that he passes GNG without stating why, which is pretty much a vote so I discounted their rationales. Jersey92 policy based argument is right. I see no evidence presented in this debate he meets WP:GNG. Secret ^account 23:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sean[edit]

Christopher Sean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Barely meets the Biography of Living Persons' Sources policy. Mainly built on actor's new casting on Days of Our Lives, which is hardly notable for an episode stint actor to warrant a page. Also falls under Subjects notable only for one event. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy -- WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Yet another article intended to create notability for someone, to help their career. Having minor walk-on roles in soap operas (as a waiter in a restaurant and a patient in a hospital...) and having appeared in thoroughly non-notable beauty pageants isn't even close to establishing notability by Wikipedia's standards. Thomas.W ^talk 16:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Admin. Actually Christopher had a recurring role in 10 episodes of The Lizzie Bennet Diaries from 2012-2013 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2392261/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast . He also starred in a movie called TwiHarder (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2210830/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_9) in a lead role which was released in 2013. Apart from that...he is playing a recurring contract role of Paul Norita on Days of Our Lives. He also recurs on Hawaii Five-0 as Gabriel Waincroft. he's also playing a lead in the movie called Young Again which is in post-production mode set for 2015 release. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1303678/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1 . I don't comprehend why Christopher's page has to be deleted when he has appeared in a few movies ( and lots of shows. Plus it's rude and unfair to consider a page for deletion when it took me like 10 hours to create an article for Christopher. But then again, it's up to the Admin. Here's the actor's imdb page http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1268478/?ref_=nv_sr_1 --Princessruby (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is a user-contributed site, and not WP:RS. Thomas.W ^talk 20:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't change the fact that he has appeared in shows (recurring roles n etc) and movies (in lead roles).--Princessruby (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Barely meeting the Biography of Living Persons' Sources policy is still meeting it. IMDB can't establish notability but the information in it suggests that the subject has enough acting credits in enough notable programs to reach the notability barrier. Princessruby seems to have been editing the article heavily in the last few days in reaction to this AfD and the result is clear. More work is needed but I'm convinced that the article should stay. —mako๛

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I think the article should stay too. --Princessruby (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he is not just a day player on Days of our Lives; I believe he's currently under contract for two years. He has other credits, as well as beauty pageant titles. I believe this rises to the level of notability. --DavidK93 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: - while I am not a fan or familiar with his work, he does appear to have accumulated a sufficient body of work to pass the notability threshold. Quis separabit? 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see lots of people saying "Keep" without explaining how this subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. He seems to have had only minor, insignificant roles that do not pass notability. Being "under contract" does not make someone notable. "I think this article should stay" does not make them notable. "Seems to pass" does not make them notable. "beauty pageant titles" does not make someone notable unless they are significant pageants. This is not a vote. Notability needs explanation and there is none here because the subject fails notability. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:32, 29 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) Biblioworm 02:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Dining Finder[edit]

Healthy Dining Finder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - only passing mentions! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 10:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment The only reference in the article that establishes notability in the slightest is the USA today citation. However, there was an Associated Press article in September of 2006 that was picked up by several newspapers (example), and a decent mention here. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I think this may pass WP:WEB due to significant mentions (one paragraph each) at the New York Times and the Today Show. For some reason the USA Today link wouldn't load for me but it may add to notability as well. The AP article noted by 78.26 is significantly about the website and contains information that could be added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I didn't see those as significant... they don't, in my opinion, address the topic in detail. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 22:06, 25 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 20:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I also found this San Diego Union-Tribune article. In conjunction with the smaller newspaper coverage already noted in the article, I believe the notability bar is cleared. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the AP article is *entirely* about the subject, I don't understand how you could say it doesn't address it in detail. The source found by Whpq seals the deal, it clearly meets WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:14, 3 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SCII Arcade: Project Haven[edit]

SCII Arcade: Project Haven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hot Coffee or DotA aside, since when have mods been notable, let alone one made with a mod editor? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A: When they're covered by abundant, secondary, reliable sources. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. Would entertain a redirect to a StarCraft-related article if there is a single secondary source that would host such a connection. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 07:30, 23 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 20:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I couldn't find any notable references. Mods aren't notable for Wikipedia unless they have enough coverage, like the previously mentioned DotA and others. StewdioMACK (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no sources in the article and I can find none myself that would establish this as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to P5 (microarchitecture). czar ⨹ 02:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pentium compatible processor[edit]

Pentium compatible processor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Alleged to be non-notable, article's been here for years though and seems to assert some significance, albeit in a technical capacity. I'll let the community decide what to do with it. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Pentium P5 (microarchitecture). This would be a perfectly acceptable topic to discuss in that article. There was a pretty huge market for these processors back in the day, and they did attract significant coverage, though it was mostly in the form of benchmarks. For example, this article in PC Magazine is one of several articles that I found that benchmarks the various alternatives against Intel's Pentium series. This article from Infoworld also has a brief description of the K5, which it labels as a Pentium compatible CPU. This article from PC Magazine and this article from Popular Science discuss them as a group. Although it's not terribly difficult to find magazine articles on Google Books about the topic, I don't think Pentium compatible CPUs are independently notable of the Intel Pentium itself; they are always mentioned as an alternative to or benchmarked against the Pentium. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pentium is about an Intel brand used for processors from several different generations, with several different microarchitectures. P5 (microarchitecture) is about the microarchitecture of the original Pentium and the processors using that microarchitecture; that might be a more appropriate target for the merge, if the merge were to be done. Guy Harris (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I guess I should have read the merge target more carefully. Merge target updated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:31, 26 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 20:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to P5 (microarchitecture) per the comments of NinjaRobotPirate. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:04, 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. Secret ^account 23:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lanka University News[edit]

Lanka University News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article doesn't provide any independent reliable sources to verify notability of the subject, an education news website. The sources provided are either primary (Lanka University News) or blogs. A quick Google search also fails to provide any mention of the website. The article reads like promotional material and the sole contributor, User:Dinesh De Alwis, is the owner of the website which is a conflict of interest. Dinesh De Alwis has previously spammed numerous articles with links to this website.

This article was first created by Dinesh De Alwis in December 2012 but was deleted after being proded for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment at this stage all of the references are either from personal blogs or the University News website. WP:Notability requires an article to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As indicated by the nominator the creator of the article appears to be closely related to the article, which raised questions about the indepdence of the material contained within the article (such as "“Lanka University News” is the leading education web site in Sri Lanka). Dan arndt (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 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 20:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the article's creator has been provided ample time to provide independent verifiable sources to establish the article's notability - I have to change my previous comment to support the deletion of this article.Dan arndt (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenaries (BattleTech)[edit]

Mercenaries (BattleTech) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Similar to clans article, there are no independent sources that indicate the notability of these factions outside of that game universe. There isn't enough to create an article about history and development of the mercenary factions or anything of that sort or enough sources to justify a list of these factions. I suggest a merger of the actually sourced material into BattleTech#Mercenaries. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Weak, because of sentimental reasons (I contributed to this ages ago), but yes, as written, this fails notability for fictional entities/characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. And I speak as someone else with a sentimental attachment to Battletech. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:38, 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 merge to BattleTech#Clans. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clans (BattleTech)[edit]

Clans (BattleTech) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no independent sources that indicate the notability of these clans outside of that game universe. There isn't enough to create an article about history and development of the clans by the others or anything of that sort or enough sources to create a list of the individual clans. The separate clan articles have been merged here and suggest a merger of the actually sourced material into BattleTech#Clans (which may be about another paragraph). Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Weak, because of sentimental reasons (I contributed to this ages ago), but yes, as written, this fails notability for fictional entities/characters. And while we are at it, we should probably AfD few more entries from ((BattleTech)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge per nominator's suggestion. BOZ (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. some of the keep comments are not based in policy, but a NYT obit is enough to meet WP:GNG and policy based arguments are about equal in both sides. Secret ^account 23:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Scorsese[edit]

Catherine Scorsese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Having a famous son doesn't make you famous. No notable roles. JDDJS (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep George Washington's mother would disagree. Sometimes having a famous son does make you famous. And the New York Times says that Catherine Scorsese qualifies[4]ShulMaven (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several monuments have been erected to Mary Ball Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia, where she lived from 1772 until her death in 1789. ... The University of Mary Washington, a public university in Fredericksburg, Virginia, was named for her. The Mary Washington Hospital, located in Fredericksburg, is named for her. I do not believe Mother Scorsese has had any such honors; the mother of a well-regarded filmmaker is not quite on the level of the mother of perhaps the founding-est father of the United States. Notability is not inherited, unless it is. That said, Mrs. Scorsese has had a few supporting roles in some major movies, but not enough to pass WP:NACTOR, and does not appear to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG either. I stand at delete. Deadbeef 02:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - Just because her sons famous doesn't mean she gets one happy pass, Fails NACTOR + GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Taking a second look - still saying keep. Here's why: In additon to the full NYTimes obit [5] There were obits in lots of major newspapers. There is some more recent news coverage. [6] this [7] plus academics in film studies writing about her influence on him.[8], [9] Typing her into a Proquest newspaper search turns up feature articles like this one (coping over on ly headline, cit. abstract, not full article): Star of the Kitchen / Scorses's mom doesn't need any direction when cooking: [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]

By Wendy Lin. STAFF WRITER. Newsday, Combined editions [Long Island, N.Y] 29 Dec 1996: G.03.

Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers by selecting the Enter button

Hide highlighting

Abstract (summary)

Translate Abstract

She's a fair actress, mostly playing mothers or bystanders, a wedding guest, a fruit stand customer. But through it all, it is her cooking that has distinguished her. Scorsese supervised the food scenes in "Goodfellas," in which she also acted, as the mother of the character played by Joe Pesci. She has cooked pasta for Sergio Leone and John Cassavetes.

It may be pure sentimentality, but a new cookbook aims to immortalize the cooking and, in smaller measure, the life and times of Catherine Scorsese. "Italianamerican - The Scorsese Family Cookbook," (Random House, $21) is part cookbook, part history of Little Italy in the first half of this century and part biography of the Scorsese family.

The book is co-written with Georgia Downard, the culinary director for the Food Channel Network. But Scorsese deserves much of the credit for shaping the book. His mother, for example, did not gush forward with the tales and recipes that fill the book. Scorsese and Downard apparently had to pull them out of her. Said Scorsese: "I had to director her. I'd say, `Mom, let's discuss this,' or `Mom, do you remember the time . . .?' And she would remember a story or a recipe. direction when cooking"

And this one: ONE ROUTE TO FILM ROLES: HAVE DIRECTOR AS KIN: [3 STAR Edition]

Mitchell, Deborah. Orlando Sentinel [Orlando, Fla] 16 Sep 1991: D1.

Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers by selecting the Enter button

Hide highlighting

Abstract (summary)

Translate [unavailable for this document]

Now [Catherine Scorsese] and Charles Scorsese have membership cards in the Screen Actors Guild and work for a variety of directors - any time a movie is shot in Little Italy, their son acknowledges, "they're in it." Catherine Scorsese appeared in Moonstruck and Godfather III; her husband served as a technical adviser while Coppola was filming in Little Italy. The Scorseses were extras in Prizzi's Honor and spent a week last year working with Spike Lee on Jungle Fever, although their scenes were cut.

There are many similar. And coverage this extensive constitutes notability. Even if she did acquire it by being a mother.ShulMaven (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the links you provide: Gothamist is a blog entry consisting mainly of quotes from the NYT obituary. The Passion of Martin Scorsese and Gangster Priest: The Italian American Cinema of Martin Scorsese are to books which have mentions of Catherine Scorsese in the context of her son. Cinephilia and Beyond has nothing more than a photo of Catherine Scorsese from the set of "Casino".
  This is not extensive coverage and none of it deals with the subject in depth. What do we know about her other than she has a famous son, had minor roles in a few of his movies and was a good cook? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I thoroughly enjoyed Mrs Scorsese's cameos in "Goodfellas" and "Casino", and she sounds like a wonderful lady. But mentions of her in reliable sources are typically in the context of coverage of her son and provide little-to-no in-depth information. We know she has a famous son, had minor roles in a few of his movies and was a good cook, but little else. Being deceased, we can presume that this is lack of coverage is unlikely to change. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obituaries such as the NYT example are clear evidence of notability per the WP:GNG and there's plenty more detail out there in sources such as The Sicilian Factor. Having a more famous relative is not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article has links to the book The Immigrant Generations by Robert Casillo, which is very detailed on Martin's family history. Some of that is mentioned in the article on Martin, but the book has much more detail. I added a paragraph about that and the environment where Martin grew up. I think it's worth keeping for that. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:19, 28 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 19:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - she had a good son, who cast her regularly in supporting roles. Too bad that he made her a type cast stereotype. A Times obit is an indicator of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has a whole queen-of-the-cameo vibe going on. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:15, 1 December 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. Secret ^account 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Baker[edit]

Bart Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

plain advertising. Not convinced about his notability too, due to the many sources that fail WP:RS and the extensive edits of clearly involved editors ([10])The Banner talk 21:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and clean up. This article relies too much on citations to blogs and cites that are not reliable. For example, it cites his Youtube statistics from one site, but I can find another site that gives different statistics that do not include him in the top 100. As far as I can tell, Youtube does not announce "official" statistics, and where one appears in the ranking used by others can change minute by minute. (This is similar to Amazon ranking, where an item can be in the top 100 for a few minutes one day in May, for example). The article could be half as long, much less superlative, and should drop the cites to blog posts (and thus the data supported by them) and his own work. I think this person would still be notable since his videos are well known and extremely popular. The references I would keep are: 3, 5, 14, 18, 24 (although the latter, the webby awards is ironically such a horrid online experience that I cannot find his video there). I could try a reduction of the article if the conclusion is "keep." LaMona (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although clean up is not my target, I guess clean up can enhance the keep-chances of this promo-piece. The Banner talk 14:44, 27 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 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The only provided reasonable source that provides any depth of coverage about Baker is a Washington Post based Blog. That's not enough. The Webby award is not a major award, it's a pay for play award farm giving out hundreds each year. If this is kept it should be totally rewritten to reflect this source. Along the lines of Baker is a youtube parodist who is neither smart nor funny. Not the fawning adoration that exist now duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the five refs mentioned above. (as at 22 nov, assuming these are the ones meant) 3. Huff Post, normal not a reliable source, no indication this is otherwise. Just him talking about himself. 5. no depth of coverage about Baker. 14. Huff post again, not a RS. 18. Best of a bad lot, questionable reliablility as a blog, not enough by itself. 24. Primary. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 29 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. Secret ^account 23:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antti Arst[edit]

Antti Arst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This afd failed to reach consensus, but the underlying notability issues remain. Beach soccer and futsal are not covered by WP:NSPORT and he has not received significant coverage for his involvement in this sport meaning the article fails WP:GNG. Beyond that, he has not played regular football in a fully professional league or for the Estonian national team, meaning the article also fails WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 27 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 18:12, 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. Secret ^account 23:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Param Singh[edit]

Param Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails the relevent notability guidelines. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Fails the general notability guidelines.— CutestPenguin^Hangout 06:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The previous AfD subject was a different person of this name. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:20, 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. Secret ^account 23:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Hayat Hakim[edit]

Mir Hayat Hakim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced and unverifiable biographical article. Appears to be part of a farm of articles and attempts to include information about people named "Hayat" by User:Hayatgm. Kinu ^t/_c 17:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not establish the notability, it seems someone unknown person. In Google search, no any source to support the subject's notability.Justice007 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Chief contributor Hayatgm was on a campaign to add articles on multiple members of this family, it seemed. User was also engaging in disruptive removals of CSD and AfD templates, so I suspect a personal COI. However, and more importantly, there is no indication for why this subject deserves an article or how they meet notability requirements, or even really what they did since the prose is so confusing. No hits at Google Books or Google News. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I also suspect COI. Could not find any reliable sources concerning the subject. THis is probably a copyvio of [11]. Faizan 13:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I found nothing on him on Google Books, fails WP:GNG. Also, I've never seen so many inline cleanup tags on such a short article! (7) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:24, 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. Secret ^account 23:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rajput clans of Jalandhar Division[edit]

List of Rajput clans of Jalandhar Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jat_clans_of_Multan_Division and
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Jat_clans_of_Lahore_Division
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_Rajput_clans_of_Rawalpindi_Division

As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Rajput in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Rajput or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Rajput." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same. Sitush (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Renominated for discussion. There were no comments at the previous nomination but, as the examples noted above indicate, there is a general consensus that the group of articles of which this is an example are not worthy of inclusion here. Note also that the list above is not exhaustive. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete - Outdated statistics. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:52, 1 December 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. Secret ^account 23:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lali clan[edit]

Lali clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The tribe does exist - eg: [12] and this - but beyond mentions in lists such as these there appears to be nothing written about it in reliable sources. Sitush (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator; I previously tried to PROD this for the same reason. APerson (talk!) 03:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too short. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and convert to redirect to Lalian, which has details about the clan. At least the names of books that are supposed to be histories of the clan. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lalian is unsourced for the relevant points and any books that were listed are useless. In fact, the Lalian article probably needs to be stubbed. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean useless in the sense that Bhim Singh Dahiya was useless, as an amateur linguist with unverifiable theories about history? From information on the net, that's the sense that I got. OK, remove that. Looking through the history, I see that you've been trying to get rid of this article for years. What was the issue with the "Gazetteer of Jhang District 1909"? Maybe it's not the most reliable source, but when it's the only one... all of our information about the early Germans comes from the Romans. The Gazetteer still survives in Gilotar, which is a similar article to this one. If we delete this, that should probably go too. Is there a policy that we are not going to go into this level of detail on Jat clans in Punjab? Also, about the Sufi poet, Mian Muhammad Siddique Lali, there doesn't seem to be any information in English, but has anyone checked Urdu? It seems like he existed, like the clan exists.

I'm not saying that this article deserves to survive. I don't think it does. But is there a problem with redirecting the name to their main town, which does seem to be true? I'm trying to get a sense of how much we need to delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dahiya is a fringe theorist par excellence. We don't use Raj and pre-Raj sources for caste/tribe issues, by long-standing convention. You will find some threads about that at WP:RSN but, in simple terms, they fail because of things such as puffery, Vedic Brahmin lies bias, scientific racism and WP:HISTRS. The most generous interpretation of those sources would be that they are compilations of folklore, and that is pushing it. The exception would be if a modern academic etc source cited the old source, which is extremely rare and would in any event mean that we could cite the modern source instead. I need to write that essay some day.

I'm not sure what your point is when you say that I've been "trying to get rid of the article for years" but I can assure you that I've got a lot of experience in this topic area. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, that's what I wanted to know. I guess there is no point in redirecting to another article if the relevant information is dubious and slated for removal. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:00, 4 December 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the Equality of the Sexes[edit]

On the Equality of the Sexes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain text, as described in Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. This is not an encyclopedia article as is, say, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, but a copy/paste of primary source with a cursory introduction. It would need a complete re-write and/ deletion of all but assertion of existence to meet quality standards. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I deleted the copy/paste of the actual text of the essay from the article, which took me only a couple of minutes, even using a smart phone. The essay is notable as one of the earliest expressions of feminist thought, and significant coverage can be found in this biography of its author. We really shouldn't delete poorly written articles about clearly notable topics. Instead, we should improve them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also finding quite a bit about this, to the point where it seems to be one of her most important works since it sets up the structure for her later works. It's referenced quite frequently from what I can see and republished extremely frequently in various textbooks and readers (by mainstream academic publishers and the like). ([13], [14], [15], [16]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This needs some serious work from someone familiar with the subject matter, but from what I can see this is one of Murray's most important works and it's been discussed in a ton of academic sources and cited with regularity in many scholarly works on the topic of feminism. ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21]) I'll drop a note on WP:FEMINISM and see if anyone there can work on the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On a side note, this will need to be moved to remove the quotation marks, since we typically do not put those on article titles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied the raw source text has been removed, and agree it is a notable subject. I no longer support deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable enough to warrant inclusion, weak analyses. See Politics_and_the_English_Language for an example of a notable and sufficiently studied essay. 107.15.41.141 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The essay is notable, but it does need a lot more work before it'll look as well laid out as that essay's article does. Just because an article isn't large or contain goo-gobs of sourcing currently on the page does not mean that it's automatically non-notable, although I will say that the current sourcing on the article is enough to assert notability, especially since many of them assert that it's the author's most notable work and laid the groundwork for her later essays on the same topic. In any case, we shouldn't throw out a perfectly notable topic just because it will need a lot of work to get to the level that other articles about essays are at. That's sort of the converse of how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS usually works: just because another article is more fully fleshed out doesn't mean that disposing of another article is the right course of action. It just means that this article hasn't gotten enough TLC yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a synopsis of the essay to the article, so anyone coming in will have something to work with as opposed to having to write out something themselves. I want to again stress that this essay is notable and that there are multiple sources that refer to it as Murray's most notable work, as well as at least one article in a peer-reviewed journal that focuses solely on this essay and an article in the Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review that focuses heavily on it as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Tokyogirl79, for writing a good synopsis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Haven't found a lot of pieces solely about the work (though there's this), but I'm not sure that matters after looking at the way the first page of GBooks treat the essay. This is how they introduced the work: "pioneering two-part essay", "landmark essay", "now famous essay", and so on. Since these reliable, published books consider it notable, deletion is out of the question. The question of whether it should be redirected is a matter of how many sources can be found on the topic, which is a discussion for the talk page. czar ⨹ 17:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article has been cleaned up and appears to pass WP:GNG. Kaldari (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep wp:HEY at the very least. Probably a keep when it was nominated but certainly passes the GNG by now. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tokyogirl79 and czar. - tucoxn\^talk 14:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant discussion among numerous secondary sources over a sustained period of time. — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 1 December 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. Secret ^account 23:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marin Magazine[edit]

Marin Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG. Subject is a non notable local publication. No indication it has received any recognition via major awards nor news coverage or other scholarly interest. It is named a lot in authors bios as part of their previous contributions, but there is no indication that it is from some cache' the publication itself has rather than an inherited cache' from the county where it is located- and none of those mentions contain substantive info about the magazine. (the previous AfD was speedy close because a likely COI editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia had not expressed a valid rationale) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are no guidelines for the notability of magazines as yet, but this article does fail WP:GNG as per nom. Theroadislong (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as the administrator who closed the first AFD, my decision was predicated on the fact that the nominating editor based his rationale on the assertion of personal ownership rights over the article, in particular his inability to get primary-sourced promotional content inserted into the article unchecked by any of Wikipedia's actual content standards — which is not a legitimate reason for deletion. Despite my decision the first time around, I agree that the article as written is not actually claiming or sourcing enough notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia — and if people are looking for additional sourcing and failing to find any, then there's no real prospect of it becoming keepable either. Magazines actually are covered by WP:NMEDIA and WP:NMAG — but this magazine isn't passing either of them. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyvio, and arguably a G11 as well. —Cryptic 15:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oikyo linux[edit]

Oikyo linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not aim to be objective, but promotional Dbrown2k14 (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BITE concerns are not a policy based reason for keeping an article. That's something that needs to be dealt with the nominator. Secret ^account 23:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia Bread Company[edit]

Magnolia Bread Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication given of notability or significance of this small bakery. Speedy deletion has been attempted by me and another user but the tag has been removed by a third party, citing potential improvement, but no indication of such improvement(or the potential for improvement) has yet been given, or any other reason this small business merits inclusion. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This article was inappropriately tagged for speedy deletion while its creator, a new editor, had barely begun to work on it, and was still attempting to write it. At best, this kind of "patrolling" violates WP:BITE, drives away potentially valuable contributors, and does little or nothing to improve wikipedia. That blitz-tagging the article with boilerplate has, for the moment, driven a good faith contributor away should not be a rationale for deletion, nor is it in any way evidence that no "potential for improvement" exists. I see no reason to encourage bad editing by would-be "patrollers" who seem more interested in bulking up deletion scalp counts by whacking articles-in-progress. At worst, this could be moved to draftspace with appropriate encouragement for its author, but better to give them a decent opportunity to return and complete their work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in "bulking up deletion scalp counts" (please assume good faith); I am interested in articles being referenced(even if not done in the correct technical manner) and in some indication as to why a small bakery merits inclusion in a global encyclopedia. I'm still waiting to hear the answer to that. If the editor had contested the deletion I would have been happy to explain things to them and if they had indicated they were still working, I also would have been happy to work with them on that. I have no nefarious motives- though I'm unsure why I'm being picked on when this type of thing happens hundreds of times a day. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pretending to be a victim. After even a cursory reviewing of your "deletion logs", which seem to be be much, much longer than your article creation or improvement logs would be, it is evident that you have shown little or no interest in allowing new editors a reasonable opportunity to write articles, and do little or nothing to help or encourage them. You tagged this article while it was still being written, barely one minute after the creator's previous edit. I've seen fifteen minutes suggested as the minimum interval to allow for further editing (which strikes me as absurdly inadequate), but allowing only one minute is stupid and inconsiderate.

And this is hardly an isolated occurrence. From your deletion logs:

• Americare [22] Nov 18, speedied one minute after a new editor's first edit. After that, within an hour, you escalated to an AFD, which you had to withdraw shortly thereafter because you hadn't made the minimal effort called for by WP:BEFORE.
• Gods of Ancient Egypt [23] Sept 25 - another one-minute rush-tag
• Wizards Futbol Club [24] Just 8 minutes after a new editor began work on their second article, and their contribution history made it plain that were unlike;y to stop with this edit
• HWD Hospital Radio [25] July 31 Less than one minute after a new editor began writing, and it appeared from the article text that they had inadvertently posted before they had even completed their initial effort. Doing something like this and making no effort to meaningfully communicate with a good faith, constructive editor is virtually inexcusable bad behavior.
• Hamish madden [26] Nov 27 Blitz-tagged only five minutes after the creator had established their account (and, obviously, less than that since their one and only edit). The Gcached copy shows it likely that this new editor had started their userpage in mainspace, a common error that a competent, responsible editor would have responded to by moving the page into userspace and leaving an appropriate encouraging note. You, however, have apparently driven this editor away.
• Jamm Radio [27] Blitz-tagged only four minutes after the article creator established their account. Gcache shows this article deals with a college radio station, and likely at worst should have been redirected rather than summarily deleted. Once again, a good faith new editor with constructive intent gets slapped in the face by 331dot when thedy should have been encouraged.
• Kevin Wacasey [28] Blitz-tagged only two minutes after article creation, yet again targeting the first effort from a new editor without giving them a decent opportunity to write their first article.

This is horrendous, nonconstructive editing that does little or nothing to improve Wikipedia. Prowling around thed new articles and pouncing on articles from new editors before they've even finished their first effort violates WP:BITE and drives potentially valuable contributors away. It should be obvious that the results, on balance, are not appropriately constructive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not this big monster you seem to be making me out to be, and I'm not sure what I did to deserve your ire and condemnation instead of some friendly advice- but I guess assume good faith is out the window here. I still feel like I'm learning too despite having been here a little while- I don't have your eight year edit history here to know how to read the tea leaves and divine the intention of other editors. I didn't realize this was the "Analyze and condemn 331dot's edit activity and motives" page, but I don't think it should be. If you wish to further discuss how I edit, since you seem to have the time to analyze my edit history, you know where to find my talk page. Do you have anything to add about the merits of an article on a small bakery with no indication of its notability or significance? 331dot (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Best I can find is this, which is barely better than a namedrop. There are apparently unrelated companies of this name in Alabama and Georgia, but they don't seem to meet WP:CORP either. Article as it stands is an A7, and (having seen the edit warring over the tag) I was going to speedy it myself after another few hours. Delete. —Cryptic 15:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An unreferenced article making to real claim to notability. Plainly a firm going about its business, but multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are turning up nothing to indicate that the firm is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Biting newbies so strongly and immediately is awful...the new editor had started the article 5 minutes ago and was editing it. Who knows what news clippings and sources the person might have been able to produce, given some encouragement and inquiry, rather than Speedy Deletion tagging and this AFD.

Also, I added an independent reliable source to the article, in form of Youtube video coverage by a news source "Chesapeake Taste". Chesapeake Taste is itself described here. Perhaps there is other news coverage. Keep and let it be developed, though damage has been done. --doncram 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I found coverage in Chestertown Spy, and added that too. What searching was done wp:BEFORE? --doncram 15:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: There was no intention to "bite" strongly or otherwise- just to inquire about the notability of this company- though I appreciate you being nicer about it that the other user. I'm still figuring out how to do things here. Regarding the source, I don't see what the video indicates as notable about this company. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added more, too. The video appears to have been published at bottom of this Chesapeake Inspired news article, too. The video is coverage substantially about the topic of the Magnolia Bread Company. And so are other articles. It is soft coverage, not exactly breaking news, but it is coverage and i am thinking that the topic meets wikipedia notability. I appreciate your reply 331dot, but I do think it unfortunate that the editor has probably been driven away, rather than coaxed to provide sources that they may well have available that we don't find so easily in quick internet searching. --doncram 15:31, 1 December 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 salted. JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mrinal Kashyap[edit]

Mrinal Kashyap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not appear to be meeting the standard of inclusion on Wikipedia as they lack significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A helium-powered rocket engine? Seriously? Absurdly obvious hoax, even before inspecting SpaceShip Two's refs to disprove it. I've speedied it twice already, but I'll let someone else push the button this time. —Cryptic 14:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I was just about to nominate it for deletion myself, but as a hoax rather than for lack of notability. Nothing in the article is supported by non-self published references, and the whole "RevolutionAt18" thing is as far as I can tell an outright scam. [EDIT]: A helium-powered rocket engine is absolute nonsense (as @Cryptic: pointed out above), and there is absolutely nothing to suggest they have any connection to Virgin. Kolbasz (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Witkowski[edit]

Igor Witkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A minor Die Glocke fringe theorist mentioned by one or two authors, but only in passing, and only in context of Die Glocke. Witkowski is known only in the context of this single event, and fails WP:BIO. Since we have no other WP:RS sources to build a balanced biography of the man it would have to be all about "Nazi wonder weapons". LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Sadly thanks to the Nick Cook I have rather a lot of sources featuring this guy. However it is true that they almost exclusively focus on ufology and so I am amenable to a merge argument. I would also like to preemptively remind users to remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Artw (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems to me the only references that cite Witkowski are some recent fringe or conspiracy books such as by Joseph P. Farrell. I would like to see some reliable sources but are not seeing any. So this is a definite delete for me, unless of course some reliable references are shown but this seems doubtful. Goblin Face (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and recommend WP:SALTing ... fails GNG - typical fringe theorist protected by a castle wall of mentions by fellow fringe theorists in refs to create an appearance of notability BlueSalix (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what grounds for salting exist? Artw (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your uncertainty. Thanks - BlueSalix (talk) 05:03, 30 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Pandey[edit]

Gaurav Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines either the main ones, for biographies, nor for actors. Onel5969 (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Single listed film is not sufficient notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete May become notable in the future, but his role in the film listed was as a supporting actor and the only coverage of him I could find was an anecdote of a fan coming to his house. Fails WP:ENT. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:16, 4 December 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kumro (artist)[edit]

Kumro (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Effectively unsourced BLP of an artist with doubtful notability (seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as copyvio. From the very first version in 2007 it has been a word-for-word copy of text from the only cite, in External links. That was a dead link, but I found it on the Wayback Machine. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG and WP:CREATIVE. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:12, 4 December 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. Secret ^account 23:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Styron[edit]

Stuart Styron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable as actor, musician, or artist. BLP fails V - based on primary sources without a single source on him fails GNG. (1. PROD was 2nd ed and declined due to improvement - but hasn't improved - sourcing still fails 2. part of a set of SPAM / promo / COI / paid editor's articles - see WP:COIN#Bert Martinez_(2)) Widefox; talk 12:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poorly sourced promotional article fails WP:ENT. Created by a massive sockfarm, see [29]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Widefox Fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Deleted on 11:36, 2 December 2014 by Anthony Appleyard (G4). Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha JamVwal[edit]

Nisha JamVwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm really not sure we should be hanging on to this article. I declined a CSD tag on it recently, mainly due to coverage in The Hindu, but the sources all seem to be passing mentions, YouTube videos or interviews. I think it's worth having a community discussion over whether this person genuinely meets the notability requirements, hence I'm bringing it here.

Note that the article was previously deleted after an AFD discussion; the recreated version has similar text but new sources, and so merits a review rather than deletion under G4. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was the nominator of the previous AfD. The subject still doesn't pass our notability threshold. I can only see passing mentions and nothing else. It appears the same SPA editor has recreated the article under another username. Almost all the content of the previous one are same. No significant improvement found. All the awards seem to be very minor and the claim of Jeffrey Archer seems dubious. Sources are poor and I can't find any significant coverage. Fails notability. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G4 still applies. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable non-trivial coverage that I can find. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet notability. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 09:42, 2 December 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Science-Fellows Inc.[edit]

Science-Fellows Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable publisher of non-notable journals. The only (feeble) claim to notability is that this outfit is listed on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. No independent sources. Does not meet any notability guideline, least of all WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think WP:PERP is appropriate as an analogous guideline: if the only independent attention an academic publisher has received is to be listed as predatory, and they don't even stand out among the list of many predatory publishers (there is nothing unusual about what they do), then they're not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any sources discussing this publisher, and its journals don't seem to have been cited by anyone. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:09, 4 December 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. Secret ^account 23:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars (Australian season 15)[edit]

Dancing with the Stars (Australian season 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, yeah? OK, but I'm going to act like a petty bureaucrat in this case. Anything for a quiet life, me. This is in response to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP User changing PROD page to AFD without starting an AFD discussion.
Technically, "if anyone, including the article creator, removes a ((proposed deletion/dated)) tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith", and the anonymous user's attempt to start an AfD falls under this.
No sources were cited that this show was going to happen, so I guess the article could be deleted under WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'm fine with a WP:REDIRECT to Dancing with the Stars (Australian TV series). Shirt58 (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC) This AfD nomination contains text copied from Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bring me the paperwork to file a motion to strike a committee to oversee an Environmental Assessment, per Section III, Article J, Subparagraph 7(ii)-B, with the required reference to Appendix V, subject to the required notifications. I shall file the motion to require the committee to report back to the Council no later than February 28, 2016. Actually, delete per RegistryKey's PROD rationale: "Unsourced future-event material. Needs to have definite sources to comply with WP:FUTURE". Fails WP:CRYSTAL; the next season does not appear to have been confirmed in reliable sources, and at least the lede seems partially copy-pasted from season 14. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodeji Abass Aleshinloye[edit]

Ayodeji Abass Aleshinloye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of this article is a local politician. The article is based on his own website with much of the narrative lifted in whole. EBY (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject meets the following criteria of WP:POLITICIAN.

criterion 1: "Politicians... who have held ... sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office...". He is the current chairman of a Local Government Area (Oluyole, Nigeria) in Nigeria.

criterion 2: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.". He is well known in Oyo State as a grassroot developer and has received coverage in notable dailies like 1 and 2.

He has also authored a book that was well received here. Darreg (talk) 20:35, 18 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are 774 LGAs in Nigeria. They certainly do not count as states or provinces! That's what "statewide/provincewide office" means. It means someone who is a senior figure in a state or province of a federal country, not a smaller administrative unit. Nothing seems to mark him as anything more than a run-of-the-mill local politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you consider the size and population of Nigeria, 774 is even too small. If the 774 LGAs are so insignificant, how come they all have Wiki articles? You can't give your interpretation of province as a guideline for deletion. Encarta dictionary defines province as an administrative region or division of a country. Nigerian political anatomy functions under Federalism. The only difference between states and local govts is that the latter makes up the former. Federal, States and LGA are clearly the administrative tiers of government in Nigeria, and are all fully individually empowered by the 3 arms of government in separation of powers. There is no governmental difference between Oluyole, Nigeria and Houston other than one having a better Wikipedia article. There are also 2 very notable references (Nigerian Tribune and City People Group) recently added to the lead of the article that discuss the politician in detail. There is simply no reason this article will not be kept! Darreg (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, but there is! Precedent is that states and provinces mean first-level sub-divisions of a federal nation. This is because these are effectively sub-countries in their own right and have genuine legislatures and governments. Lesser sub-divisions are not and do not. That includes, for instance, British and American counties as well. As to whether LGAs are insignificant, I never said they were. It's also a Wikipedia consensus that all recognised settlements (even the smallest village) and higher political sub-divisions are notable by default. But that doesn't mean that everyone connected with their administration is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know nothing little on how LGAs are designated and empowered in Nigeria. LGA's are a major sub-divisions with autonomous legislators, executives and judiciary. Most of the LGAs have between 30 - 200 towns/villages. Counties is equivalent to Nigerian towns/villages, which is a step lower than LGA's. Your argument would have been appropriate, if it were to be a city within an LGA (for example Agenebode). In reality, there is really no place like an LGA in Nigeria, it is actually a collection of many villages and towns, who have their own individual administrator called a "Councillor" represented in the secretariat of the LGA. I remember an LGA, I once visited in Edo State called Etsako East, that had at about 100 towns/villages with about 30 different languages between them. The natives in a village do not even know what LGA they belong to. Criterion 1 of WP:POLOUTCOMES clearly states that "Elected and appointed political figures...are generally regarded as notable...as are usually those at the major sub-national level...". Your personal conviction to Wikipedia definition of "sub-national" is ill-informed as regards Nigeria. LGA chairmen are normally elected quadrennial-ly along with the President and Governors and form an integral part of the State House of Assembly. I sincerely have nothing to gain or lose, whether or not this article is kept but I am quite certain that the Office of the LGA Chairman is a Wikipedia notable one. For the record, I think you are more of a Deletionist than an Inclusionist as regards the info on your userspace. Darreg (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First of all, please do not make this debate personal. Personal attacks have absolutely no place in an AfD conversation nor, frankly, in Wikipedia. Second of all, 'the major subnational level' of Nigeria is "State" (plus 1 territory). LGA is a local designation - that is not under debate, the word 'local' is in it but more to the fact - they are subsets of states. While each LGA itself should have its own article with the current leader named, being the leader of any local government does not in itself lend the notability to meet WP:GNG. But "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" DO. SO, the question is then: does this particular subject meet GNG? Are there WP:RS to establish notability? There are many, many leaders of local governments in Wikipedia because those leaders meet GNG. Often, yes, because of the size & impact of that local government: Toronto, Berlin, Aleppo for example. Whether this particular subject meets that threshold is our debate. EBY (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal attack here, I spoke of Deletionist and Inclusionist based on what he had on his userpage. You are the nominator of this article, give all your reasons in a single post and let others vote with their argument. Concerning sources, there is Nigerian Tribune 1, City People Group 2 and many others. I still insist that Local Government Area is a MAJOR subnational division in Nigeria and I do not expect you to understand that. Any other division below LGAs in Nigeria is NOT MAJOR.

Comment Your arguments about whether LGA's should be considered a 'major subnational level' would make great fodder for the Local government areas of Nigeria Talk Page, to get the LGA's reclassified IN THEIR ARTICLE as a 'major subnational level'. Editors will disagree but that does not mean they don't understand. It means they disagree. The article on Nigeria states that "Nigeria is divided into thirty-six states and one Federal Capital Territory, which are further sub-divided into 774 Local Government Areas(LGAs)" - this clearly puts the LGA's down one layer from the major subnational category of "State". For notability purposes, that layer matters.EBY (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am in no way a deletionist. But I would vote to delete any local politician anywhere at lower than state/province level. Think about it: sub-national refers to American states (50), Canadian provinces (10), Australian states (6), German states (16), Indian states (29), yes, and Nigerian states (36), etc. That's a bit different from the 774 LGAs! These are closer to British and American counties, which are also collections of towns and villages, usually several hundred of them in a British county (yes, counties have elected councillors and chairmen too - we don't have articles on them! Why do you think Nigeria should be different?). You say that LGA chairmen "form an integral part of the State House of Assembly". However, this gentleman does not appear to be a member of the Oyo State House of Assembly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: i believe the subject has met the criteria for notability. First, talking about Oluyole Local Government, it has a size and population bigger and even double some countries of the world. Therefore trying to see it as being insignificant will not be fair to the over 200,000 people living there. But that may not be the issue for discussion here, the major issue here is whether the subject has met the criteria for notability. According to WP:GNG i agree the subject has enjoyed significant coverage from reliable and secondary sources which include Nigerian Tribune </1 </2 Nigerian Tribune you will agree with me is one of the most reliable sources in the country</3

The newspaper is also independent of the subject.

The subject also distinguished himself from other chairmen by implementing environmentally friendly and people oriented programes in his local government and worthy of being awarded in that regard. </4

I agree with those who say the article should be kept.user:lagelu75 12:35, 21 November 2014(UTC)

Well of course, you created it; we would assume you support its retention. Noble and notable are not the same thing - the fact that he has done good things is irrelevant, unfortunately. Local coverage in local papers of a local politician doesn't do much to get us over the WP:GNG line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails on notability in several criteria. The LGA is not a major subdivision. --Mevagiss (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As I read this his positions have been appointed, not elected. In addition, his "jurisdiction" does not meet the qualifications of a notable political subdivision.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can naive editors stop spewing this AFD with false claims???? How the fcuk can you possibly say he was not elected but appointed!!!! With such comment, it is clear you are totally in the dark as regards the Nigerian electoral process. I hope you know it is not compulsory to comment on all AFDs here. As for your second claim, I have said all I can say about it, am fed up with the bureaucratic approach on Wikipedia. Darreg (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darreg, the "false claims" are set out quite plainly in the article - "Governor Abiola Ajimobi appointed him as the Caretaker Chairman of Oluyole Local Government". It says nothing about his being elected. That might be wrong, but then the answer is to correct it, not to accuse people of "spewing ... false claims". It may well be that those who wrote the article are completely in the dark as regard the Nigerian electoral process, but that's not the fault of those commenting here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:54, 27 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, Michig (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as far as I'm concerned, claims against WP:NPOL are kind of irrelevant anyway. There are plenty of mayors, elected to lead municipalities, that have had articles deleted for failing WP:GNG. Per the policy itself - "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards [but] meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" and "Just being an elected local official [...] does not guarantee notability". Where there is an issue with those criteria, we defer to WP:GNG anyway. A 200,000-person electoral region (regardless of what they call it) is not significantly bigger than municipalities in other countries where being an elected representative is no guarantee of notability. We have similar anomalies in Australia where State MPs representing 50,000 people are presumed notable but mayors of councils two, three or four times that large are not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article obviously fails WP:POLITICIAN. His achievement has nothing to do with meeting WP:POLITICIAN. Wikicology (talk) 10:47, 2 December 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 merge topic Secret ^account 23:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gilla na Neamh Ó h-Uiginn[edit]

Gilla na Neamh Ó h-Uiginn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: non-notable. Nothing aside from this paragraph ("a poet the readiest, most pure-worded and most general in the arts of poetry that was in Ireland, died a fortnight before Easter, after gaining victory from world and from demon") exists to describe him. Checked any available links, including [30], [31], [32], [33]. Quis separabit? 03:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same rationale as for related AFD FOR Domnall mac Brian Ó hÚigínn (see [34]). Sometimes antiquity alone does not confer notability. Quis separabit? 03:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very ancient antiquity, that is, being pre-modern would count for notability. Medieval Ireland had a whole class of bards and brehons. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 00:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I incline to the view that having an obituary in the Annals of Ulster that says you were the greatest poet in Ireland at the time of your death is pretty considerable notability in itself. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sole link found via Google Search or in the article footnotes says: Annala Uladh: Annals of Ulster otherwise Annala Senait, Annals of Senat. Author: [unknown]. So where you are getting your info from ("the greatest poet in Ireland at the time of your death") I don't know but please provide some context and a working reflink. Thanks. Quis separabit? 23:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You already provided the link yourself. The Annals of Ulster is a major medieval source (even though we don't know who wrote it). It says he was "the readiest, most pure-worded and most general in the arts of poetry that was in Ireland". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well to do due diligence I rechecked the link, a link I had seen and referenced above in my deletion rationale (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100001B/text149.html) and found for the year 1346 A.D. the same thing again: "Gilla-na-naem Ua hUiginn; a poet the readiest, most pure-worded and most general in the arts of poetry that was in Ireland, died a fortnight before Easter, after gaining victory from world and from demon." The problem is that, even if this was true (and it is wholly subjective), it is woefully insufficient. It provides no evidence of any works or anything otherwise verifiable about the individual in question, aside from a one-line thumbnail sketch that would not pass muster for a contemporary bio, and can't here. There are substantive bios for people from the 12th century on Wikipedia, but this family of bards isn't among them. Quis separabit? 00:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know anything about him beyond the Annals of Ulster saying how great he was, but that in itself is amply sufficient. We don't have to know everything about a person to record that a major source says they were the bee's knees. And to argue that we shouldn't keep what little we know about him because we know more about others seems perverse. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "even if this was true"? It's an academic edition of a major source, that you posted yourself. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:54, 28 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, Michig (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge I'm pretty sure that this is going to be a wp:PERMASTUB at best. There's no in depth coverage to be found in reliable sources. Just a couple of lines barring more archaeology. So the article would be best served as a redirect to something (I don't know that section of Wikipedia well enough to suggest what) and failing that deleted. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The essay linked to rather assumes that short articles are a bad thing (that articles have to have "room to grow"). In fact, there is a notable tendency for articles to get baggy with detail when detail is available, and it's something of a relief to come across one that just gives the key facts in a brief span. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete (or merge if a target can be found). No in depth coverage, and none ever likely to appear. The content still exists in the Annals of Ulster, but a single unverified sentence from that or any similar source does not form a good basis for an article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:35, 4 December 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. → Call me Hahc21 16:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao[edit]

Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I tagged this page for POV and RS in October 2011 and nothing has been done to improve it since that date. While researching to create Song Mao Base Camp today I was unable to find any reference to the attack on Song Mao that supposedly took place on 24/5 November 1968, which surprised me given the claimed 900 South Vietnamese and 100 U.S. killed, which would have been impossible to conceal. Similarly I was unable to find any RS for an attack on Hoa Da on 23 August 1968, although apparently there was an attack on the Hoa Da District Headquarters on 18 September 1968. As the sole source for this page is articles published by the People's Army of Vietnam 22 years after the supposed events and there is no other supporting information I believe that the entire page should be deleted Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. It's notable that all the references are to what appears to be a Vietnamese Army newspaper, which is unlikely to be a reliable source, even if it does back up the material in the article. The claimed casualties are obviously rubbish: the North Vietnamese forces generally took much heavier casualties in prolonged battles as they lacked the support weapons on the US/South Vietnamese side Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as propaganda. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 2 December 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 as A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: How Beer Saved the World. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How Beer Saved the World (2011)[edit]

How Beer Saved the World (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE for inclusion, included references are a review from mdb a link to the broadcaster purchase the DVD and 4 duplicate imdb links. It was prodded and should have been deleted but the creator of the article deleted the tag after it had already remained for 7 days See diff Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm going to speedy delete this as a new version of a pre-existing article on the topic, How Beer Saved the World. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita Rai[edit]

Amrita Rai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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