< 18 October	20 October >

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. Should have been a requested move Philg88 ^♦talk 08:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lama Yeshe Losal Rinpoche[edit]

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

It seems the article was moved from Yeshe Losal to Lama Yeshe Losal Rinpoche by copy and paste just making the Talk page inaccessible. Also the move may be contrary to WP:NAMES guidelines on Honorific prefixes. Can I suggest that we delete the article first to restore the talk page Talk:Yeshe Losal then debate teh topic of if either Lama or Rinpoche should be included in the article in the light of the policies of Wikipedia, and the obvious fact that he is almost always referred to or known as by the title Lama Yeshe, so the title might be needed in the name of the article as an exception to the policy.Billlion (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why this is listed here, it looks to me more like a candidate for a requested move. I suggest that the nominator withdraws the submission and we thereafter deal with the maintenance issues. FWIW, both "lama" and "rinpoche" are honorifics and should not form part of the article title, i.e. it should be Yeshe Losal. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was moved from Yeshe Losal but by copy and paste so the Talk page was lost. Does requesting a move fix this? as Yeshe Losal exists as a redirect can it be moved back? Could we just revert the copy and paste move or does this cause more problems? Billlion (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Billlion: I can fix the cut and paste issue with a history merge if required. The first step is to withdraw the nomination. Please post a comment to that effect and I will close this AfD. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Philg88: Thanks yes please. Lets close the AfD and you can do the history merge. Then we can continue the debate about naming on the Talk page of the merged article. Billlion (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Cass[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Article was previously deleted back in 2007 for a lack of notability; bringing this back up for discussion since it has been re-created this year.~~ Not finding a lot of improvement in sourcing since 2007. The bulk of the subject's coverage appears to be small mentions in a variety of articles. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this "Benjamin Cass" is a different person as the previous Afd discussion refers to someone who "owns a few websites and was part of a local, citywide film festival". There appear to be some allegations of impropriety in connection with Andrew Landeryou, however, whatever that may be is likely subject to WP:ONEVENT and WP:EVENT. - Location (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice catch, thank you. I've stricken the intro to my statement. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could be wrong. Might need an admin to look back at the old article to confirm it. - Location (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the previous article was for an American with a different birthdate to the Australian currently occupying the article. I think it's reasonably safe to assume they're different people. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. He is mentioned in this academic paper, and in the following sources [1] [2][3][4][5][6]... If the article is kept, Victoria Student Housing (VSH) should be mentioned. --Edcolins (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regarding VSH and the sources noted above, I have big BLP concerns in that 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 specifically refer either to accusations, allegations, or claims made against the subject, and that it seems to end there. (5 is not a reliable source.) As an event, this appears to fail WP:EVENT, as does the earlier litigation. As an individual, I'm not sure if WP:POLITICIAN is applicable to a student union leader, but he would fail that one, too. -Location (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO. --Edcolins (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability[edit]

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

Been trying to figure out if this meet notability or not-now it is a pretty big article. But it also comes across as a advertisement in a way-also it just started less then 3 months ago! So too soon if ever I suppose. Wgolf (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Looks like the guy created a similar article at the same time Institute of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability (ICRS). Wgolf (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-They are notable when you consider that to become an Institute in the UK, they had to obtain permission from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills of the UK Government. Also, to be launched at The City of London Guildhall you would need to be a notable organisation. Finally, consider that whilst there is the suggestion that they 'started less than 3 months ago' the Institute was created by Corporate Responsibility Group which was established in 1987 (when few people knew what Corporate Responsibility meant). Simonjon (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited page to 1) add content to prove notability, 2) remove primary sources, 3) add impartial external sources, 4) remove primary content, 5) add links to valid wiki articles. Simonjon (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simonjon's extensive changes have brought the article to "obvious keep" status: Noyster (talk), 15:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 4 October 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, kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:30, 11 October 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) 23:32, 19 October 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. Delete all j⚛e decker ^talk 04:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darwira Sazan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on the claim that the Malaysian Premier League is listed at WP:FPL. It is not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - oops, Malaysian Premier League is the 2nd tier? FFS - the naming of leagues getting more and more ridiculous. What next, the Super Duper League? Might as well add Mohamad Bashier Napae to this as well then. Nfitz (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding another article to the nomination as suggested. @GiantSnowman: You may want to express a separate opinion on this. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:40, 21 October 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) 12:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three - They haven't played in a Fully professional league and they don't have any senior international caps either therefore they all fail WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (four) – no indication that notability requirements are met. C 679 13:13, 27 October 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 - withdrawn by nominator. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Influenster[edit]

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

The sources provided for this article are either primary sources or dead links. Looking for sources, I was only able to find blogs, and found almost no coverage in reliable sources. Consequently, I consider this article should be deleted as there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have additional sources to add. Let me try and revise with new citations to add diversity. This is an article that I've been wanting to edit more, but unfortunately have been busy this week. Here are some of my sources:

Ghst343 (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghst343, thanks for showing there are reliable sources - I'll withdraw the nomination. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard E. Siferd[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. Has been tagged for notability issues since 2010, but no other sources have popped up to prove there's anything other than his status as a candidate to justify an article. High COI as well--creator is RSIferd (talk · contribs). HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsuccessful nominee in an election 8 years ago with no independent sources or indication of notability. Tiller54 (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as nominee for federal office. None of the online bios I found (including for his firm) suggest other grounds for notability and a few quick Google searches turned up nothing of note. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and fails both WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Newcomb[edit]

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

Self-promotional BLP of an essentially non-notable person. Werty1234 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Self promotion. For independent sourcing, perhaps one of the angels might like to contribute something? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As nom says. Why do so many people think an angel is looking over them? She makes a living out of answering this question in tv interviews. Szzuk (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable, blatant self-endorsing promotionalism. Quis separabit? 00:57, 27 October 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 Mayor_of_Colchester#1990.E2.80.931999. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Webb[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mayor of Colchester There's nothing to indicate any other source of notability. I would question question whether being mayor of Colchester is notable, but since there's already an existing list why not redirect there? 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sounds like a good idea - Mayor of Colchester is this article's only incoming link from an article. A redirect there, or to Mayor of Colchester#1990–1999 more specifically, would certainly be a harmless redirect. Boleyn (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Local councillors are not generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per positive consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Hail Freedonia! A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Freedonia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no evidence of notability anywhere. This article was previously discussed in 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Freedonia, which was closed as "keep". At that time, Wikipedia:Notability had not been created, and standards for articles were much laxer than they are now, but even by the notability standards of 2006 the "keep" closure seems to me dubious, and by today's standards it would be totally wrong. Most of the "keep" comments either simply claimed notability without giving any reason (e.g. "keep. Notable") or gave reasons which do not accord with Wikipedia policy (e.g. "Keep, it exists it is therefore notable enough in my books" and "keep. I love micronations. What's the accurate population?"). "Delete" comments, on the other hand, did give reasons. There is scarcely any coverage in any reliable source anywhere. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting the above, I have found that the article was discussed a second time, in 2007, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Freedonia (2nd nomination). That discussion does contain some better attempts to argue for notability than the first discussion, but the "keep" proponents still failed to actually produce any evidence for notability: for example, one person wrote "It's actually pretty well-sourced", but did not actually tell us where it is sourced. The same editor actually gave "is, well, something that was made up in school one day" as a reason for keeping. Another editor says "I suppose it's a question of what constitutes notability. I see passing mentions in articles about other, more notable micronations. To me, that is insufficient for notability." What is more, in quite an extensive discussion, the proponents of keeping the article, while claiming the existence of adequate sources, actually failed to demonstrate their existence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Source examples include:

Micronations. pp. 56-59.
"The invisible empires". The Sunday Leader. (scroll down on page)
"Wanted: Homeland for 300 Webheads". Metro Silicon Valley.
"Houston 101: Hail, Freedonia (Except For The Part About The Killings)". Houston Press.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times information shown in the previous AfD by itself is incontrovertible proof that this is not a hoax or something made up by a Wikipedia editor. The article says, "Freedonia has very little connection with the Marx Brothers' fictional country of the same name." It is not helpful to put time in on topics where the nomination asks, "Where are there sources", and the nomination shows no evidence of having followed WP:BEFORE D1 to look at Google books, and you look at Google books and see multiple potential sources. The USNS has posted a picture of the coinage, although, the scan is not independent, [7]. [8] provides great detail, and claims to have one of the coins...I'm not assuming that it is a WP:RS, but I don't know. [9] seems to be a WP:RS. Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep its the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by A723 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources provided above are sufficient, in my view, for the subject to meet WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorie Masters[edit]

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

Utterly promotional piece on a candidate for political office who has so far won no elections. At the very best WP:BLP1E would apply, and Masters should be mentioned in an article on the election. Unless she either wins or is the subject of more widespread coverage, there's no need to have an article on her. Huon (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if not notable or stubify to resolve promotional issues. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not based on her being notable as a politician, but notable as a prominent lawyer. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Masters is a notable attorney and author. (Also, other candidates in this race have Wiki pages and they are less notable than she is.)

Masters is notable regardless of this election. She is a famous attorney who has been the subject of press coverage before this election, including an article in the Washington Post (cited) for getting the biggest human trafficking jury verdict in history. Proof of her legal notoriety is also evident by the long list of legal awards she has received - "Top 10 Super Lawyer", "Top 250 Women in Litigation" and others listed on the page.
Masters is a notable author. She is a published author of 2 books and 144 articles.
Here is one book: Liability Insurance in International Arbitration: The Bermuda Form
Here is another book: Insurance Coverage Litigation
Masters is notable for being President of the Women's Bar of DC and for holding Board positions at notable non-profit organizations. She has also received press coverage for her public work on behalf of DC statehood and is a notable person in that field.
The Washington Post, Washington Times, Blade, DC City Paper and other papers have covered Masters during this election for DC attorney general - it's the first time that DC has ever elected this position, and it's a very notable event and Masters is a notable candidate.
Huon wrote that Masters should not have an article unless she wins. 3 other candidates - who are far less notable than Masters and who are not famous authors or award-winning attorneys - have Wiki pages, and none of them have won an election yet.

Edward "Smitty" Smith, Karl Racine, and Paul Zukerberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfilipovich (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to point #5 above, please see the Other Stuff Exists article, which basically says that the existence of one bad article does not justify another.Primefac (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to point #1: There's exactly one Washington Post article cited, "Lorie Masters seeks D.C. attorney general post in November election". I checked all third-party references given in the article, and excepting this one article they're all passing mentions or name-drops, not significant coverage. Huon (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLP1E does not apply, as one of its three required conditions is that the individual is low-profile. WP:LOWPROFILE sez: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Political candidates actively seek out media attention. --Phantasmagorian (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, WP:BIO1E is the relevant link. This is not an issue restricted to living persons, nor to "people not actively seeking out media attention". Masters is seeking out attention alright, but that's not a reason we should give it. Huon (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most relevant set of criteria is WP:POLITICIAN: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. (A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.)" After a Google search, she seems to qualify--I see three major press articles primarily devoted to her on the first page. --Phantasmagorian (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is indeed a piece of propaganda writing, complete with bogus references that make it look all encyclopedic (census figure for Fremont, Michigan). If it's trimmed down, I might reconsider. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I pared down some of the promotion. Could probably use more work, but it's an improvement. --Phantasmagorian (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Phantasmagorian: THANK YOU for taking so much time to edit the page, pare down the promotion, and generally bring the page more in line with Wikipedia's format/style. I really appreciate the time you put into making the page better. I was the original writer of the page, and this is my first attempt to submit something to Wikipedia. I appreciate your constructive assistance. (Also, please note that I only edited 1 sentence of the page you created - I deleted the reference you added to Masters starting as an associate at Jenner & Block, as I think she only worked there as a partner.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfilipovich (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see significant coverage of her (for GNG) and she doesn't meet the notability standards for politicians. I would think it's better to userfy the article until after the election. If she wins, she's notable, otherwise she's not. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a politician, meets specific criteria laid down in WP:POLITICIAN & Wikipedia:Notability (people)#cite_note-note6-7, as there are multiple newspaper articles focusing on her as a candidate specifically. Also meets WP:GNG for pro bono legal work, especially human trafficking law. Could use more secondary sources cited. --Phantasmagorian (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although previous version of article was too-promotional, so article revamped as per WP:HEYMANN. Basically, there was too much emphasis on her campaign for DC Atty General in the previous version, and not enough emphasis on her insurance litigation and other (rather impressive) activism for numerous causes, but hopefully these problems have been fixed. She litigated high-profile insurance cases such as the Hoechst Celanese one in 1997 (see article) with settlement amount in the millions, plus gets top reviews from Benchmark, SuperLawyers, Law 360. Since she's an activism for a wide range of causes (women's rights, DC statehood, human trafficking etc), there are plenty of sources out there suggesting she meets WP:GNG easily, so it does not matter whether she wins the election or not to be notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article now makes it clear that she is notable as an attorney. Whether she fails WP:POLITICIAN is, therefore, irrelevant. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable, though article retains a highly self-promotional tone. Hammerpleasedonthurtem (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her books are second editions so she must be doing something right. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:13, 27 October 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 Deletion G12 - Copyvio. Alexf^(talk) 22:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Vedic Architecture[edit]

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

No credible evidence that this is a notable topic: article borderson promotion for the work of a single author who originated the term, and is (going on user name) editor who created article TheLongTone (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No need for discussion. It's a copyvio of http://cumincad.architexturez.net/system/files/pdf/caadria2009_161.content.pdf. Have requested speedy deletion so this discussion should be closed. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:57, 19 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Coulson[edit]

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

The subject is insufficiently notable and should be deleted. Geoffreyofmonmouth (talk) 17:18, 19 October 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 October 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep How does someone non-notable wind up with both an MBE and an obit in the Independent? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - sticky toffee pudding, hotel/restaurant awards, Maxim's, MBE. Clearly notable. Emeraude (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per good source coverage. Also the MBE makes him notable for WP:ANYBIO#1. Cavarrone 06:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. Incoherent nomination: You can't "delete" the subject when he's already dead. And yes, the subject clearly has a minor notability. -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom. does not explain why the subject is not notable. MBE on its own is sufficient. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The MBE certainly is not sufficient (hundreds are awarded every year); we usually require at least a CBE for inherent notability. However, an obit in a major national newspaper does qualify him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riothero.com[edit]

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

No notable web blog. No reliable sources to prove the wp:notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just another blog pushing a political POV. Why does this deserve a wikipedia article? bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 18:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the discussions, thank you.--ZiaLater (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found only a brief mention from 2000 on Whole Earth ([10], via Highbeam, subscription reqd.) but neither that not the 2001 award nomination indicate notability. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a mention of Riothero.com in this book (purchase reqd.). Not sure if this is significant at all or worth looking at, just mentioning this.--ZiaLater (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any reliable source coverage. Sam Walton (talk) 18:56, 26 October 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) 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Pedley[edit]

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

The subject is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Geoffreyofmonmouth (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

snow keep He was a Companion of the Order of the Bath, one of the most senior orders of British chivalry. I have no idea who he was, or why he was granted that honour, but that alone (and it inevitably implies substantial coverage in all the journals of record, far beyond what WP:N or WP:V might require) means an automatic pass for notability in this piffling little website.

I'm also concerned at a freshly-knitted editor account leaping straight into action at AfD, deleting biographical articles of Bedford Modern School alumni created or worked upon by MJT21. Something is deeply suspicious about such a new, yet tightly focussed action. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The CB clearly qualifies him under WP:ANYBIO #1. We have long held that a CBE or above is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 22 October 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. Deor (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Mansfield Poole[edit]

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

There is no reason why this article should be preserved: similar articles on rowers who only took part in the Boat Race have previously been deleted. Geoffreyofmonmouth (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~neutral I'm really hard-pressed to find any reason to keep this one. That said, WP practice for collegiate sports seems to be that anyone who picks up a pigskin is an immediate keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, as an active member of WP:CFB, I can say with some authority that CFB player articles get deleted at AfD all the time. Few CFB players satisfy WP:NCOLLATH, but many more do satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON (after they become pro players). That having been said, CFB is extremely popular and the sport seems to attract more than its share of enthusiastic new editors and article creators who don't understand the applicable notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to show notability or significant coverage. Going to Oxford and rowing against Cambridge are not enough to show notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep nominator has set up an account to delete several articles in a matter of minutes. the article is focused on the subject's participation in the boat race but the subject appears to have been a fairly significant author on a brief search of google books. should be a build opportunity so hard to see how it helps to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.73.51 (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Established author of standard text books. Bibliography extendedMJT21 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unconvincing and the refs don't look up to WP:V. I checked the refs where possible. As an author he wrote academic text books, basically school books. Participating in the boat race isn't up to much nor being a school headmaster. Nor anything about his life. Szzuk (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In no way matches up to notability criteria. Snowgoose07 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears that Commercial French is a two volume tome that ran to at least seven impressions through a notable publishing house. It isn't a 'school book' as indicated above. It seems his other books were published by John Murray, another notable publishing house. If writing text books for children isn't notable, as indicated by Szzuk, then why are authors of fictional books for children included on wikipedia. On that basis you'd delete JK Rowling! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.5.40 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Magical Creatures and Where to Find Them isn't a textbook.

I'm withdrawing my delete though, on the basis of the textbooks. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Language textbooks at a secondary school level. They would be enough to make him notable if they were the most widely used UJK books at the time. Since almost no libraries ever kept books of this sort on a long term basis, it is not possible to tell how important they might have been from WorldCat. One indication that they might be widely used is that there were multiple books at different levels over a 15 year period worldcat author page. all from John Murray, a very major UK educational publisher of the period ; had they been unsuccessful, the publisher wouldn't have continued. Further investigation could be done, but it would be a serious research project. Additionally, he was head of foreign language depts at Osborne, the UK approx. equiv. of West Point. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. W. Smith[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:ACADEMIC in my books. Does not work at a university, has not published in journals, and most of his books were published by the "Institute for Economic Democracy", which (according to the article) Smith himself "founded and presides over". bender235 (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and its subcategories as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 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. Considering this a WP:WITHDRAWN on the part of the nominator, given no other !votes cast and Tokyogirl79's rescue work. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possession (Johnson novel)[edit]

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

Article seems to have not progressed since 2012 and could merge with author page Pincrete (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've changed this to an article about the overall series, which has received a bit more coverage. It's still somewhat light, but there's just enough here for the overall series to warrant an article. There might have been just enough to warrant an article for the first book alone, but the other books don't and this is stronger as a series page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm quite happy for others to decide notability and fate of this page. Tokyogirl79's changes certainly make the article MORE viable. Pincrete (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Shulman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NOMINATED FOR DELETION: Shulman is not notable enough, and his crime not significant enough, to merit a wikipedia article. He is not, as per WP:BIO, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".

Shulman did not commit any act of violence, but only predicted same.

As the Mother Jones article[11] points out, Shulman did not threaten to harm anyone HIMSELF, but merely stated that SOMEONE would likely do so. His posts and phone calls were therefore not threats but warnings and predictions, although he pled guilty to one count of "threatening to injure another person" in order to get a lower sentence.

If we gave everyone who makes a threat or even everyone who pleads guilty to making a threat over the abortion issue their own wikipedia page, wikipedia would run out of storage space.

This article was nominated for deletion before and the decision was DELETE. Instead of using the WP: DELETE REVIEW process, which is the legitimate way to un-delete a deleted article, an editor has simply re-created another article with the same name, which is, according to my understanding, a no-no. Goblinshark17 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A version of this article was deleted in 2011, but that was before sentencing. Several of the delete votes in that discussion mentioned that there might be enough coverage if the subject were to be convicted. The subject was convicted and there has subsequently been much more coverage. Since the previous deletion discussion, and used as references for the BLP, the subject has been covered in Mother Jones, the Viliage Voice, CNS News, NY Daily News, and he has been the subject of press releases from the Justice Department and the FBI. Though not used as sources for the BLP, the subject has also been covered by Staten Island Live, the Times Union, the Christian Post, North Iowa Today, CNA, First Things, and my very own KMSP. The subject passes the notability test with flying colors. Juno (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject also got a shout out on CNN when they were discussing the possible use of Ricin by terrorists. Juno (talk) 11:48, 19 October 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 October 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The crime was not violent but it was federal and sufficiently interesting to generate a handful of articles published in the media. Thus the biography meets WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The son of a notable feminist was convicted of making a threat of violence against notable pro-life activists, his self-professed motivation for his violent threats was his pro-choice views, and the crime received considerable media coverage. Ted Shulman easily meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Cloonmore (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it didn't get over the NOTNEWS barrier right after it happened, why would we think it would get over it a few years later when there's still been no significant coverage in reliable sources other than WP:ROUTINE news? Honestly, WP:EVENT/BLP1E, people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E guidelines were appropriate here then the biography should be redirected to the article about the event. In Shulman's case there is no such event article. No event happened here except that a guy was put behind bars after telling some pro-life people they were going to die soon, which is not an event. That's partly why I thought the biography should be kept. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Binksternet. Meets WP:GNG. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Frank Pavone and Robert P. George. Thulman notability seems to be primarily associated with his death threats of these two individuals. The information in these articles cover him just fine. See WP:BIO1E.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A concern with merging is some interesting and notable facts about Shulman wouldn't fit in the Pavone or George articles, including that Shulman is self proclaimed "pro-choice terrorist" and that he was arrested for possession of cyanide and other poisons. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, BoboMeowCat, but the sources say Shulman was arrested for making threats, not for possession of anything, although the cyanide and other poisons were found in his possession when he was arrested. In fact, possession of cyanide, castor beans, and rosary peas is not in itself a crime. You can't get arrested for possessing these substances. Goblinshark17 (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per sources Shulman was charged with possession of cyanide etc, but as part of his plea deal those weapons charges were dropped and he was only convicted of threats. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the sources more carefully, BoboMeowCat. They do not say that Shulman was ever CHARGED with possession of these substances (which is not a crime anyway) only that as part of his plea deal he did not face weapons charges for having them. In other words, the sources do not say that weapons charges were brought against him, only that he might have faced such charges had he not pled. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a minor differentiation cause plea deal shows he could have faced charges for possession of those substances, had he not accepted the plea deal. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between on the one hand having the prosecutors actually bring additional charges against a defendant, and on the other hand learning after the fact that such charges were under consideration and might hypothetically have been brought may seem minor to you, BoboMeowCat, but (having done a little consulting work with lawyers and defendants) I can assure you that the difference between these two things is very important, not at all minor, to defendants! Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point here was simply that the cyanide possession, along with Shulman's assertion that he's the "first pro-choice terrorist", seems interesting, unusual & notable, and it wouldn't merge well into the George or Pavone article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your right it wouldn't merge well. That's why you don't merge that part. The notability here is the death threat of two notable individuals. It's not notable that he's called himself the first Pro-choice terrorist. He's not notable because when they arrested him he had three legal substances.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty much a clear case of meeting WP:GNG. Also the fact that it has been through a AfD before with the result of deletion really is not a reason for deletion in yet another AfD, if the article has been improved. How it was recreated should also really have no baring on the AfD result. Notability is notability...--BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bailey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable minor league player. Previous AfD was a merge back when he was in the minors. Now that he's in an unaffiliated league and still fails GNG no need for an article. Wizardman 15:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spanneraol (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.--Yankees10 17:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His performance in indy ball suggests he may one day get another shot at affiliated ball, but until then... Alex (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If he'd won All-America honors or gone in the first round of the draft, it would have been enough to save the article. Come back when you've made the bigs, kid. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 00:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:37, 21 October 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Cecchini[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass GNG or ATHLETE currently. I'm okay with a merge to the Mets' minor leaguer page. Wizardman 14:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New York Mets minor league players as he is a top prospect and high draft pick. Spanneraol (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with not passing GNG [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]--Yankees10 17:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New York Mets minor league players. Alex (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why? Did you just ignore the sources I provided above?--Yankees10 19:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC upon a review of sources provided by User:Yankees10. The coverage is well beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Thus, the subject qualifies for a standalone article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by User:Yankees10. He passes GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 20 October 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 hoax. Giant Snowman 17:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Peremene Gidion[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure this person exists. First of all, if you search his name on Google, you only come up with Wiki pages. Second of all, he supposedly won football awards at age 5. When this page was created, it said he was a half-inch tall. The article may just be badly written, or the name is wrong or something, but I have some serious doubts about the notability/existence of Jimmy Peremene Gidion. Thesixthstaff (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the only source on the article brings up a 404 error. Thesixthstaff (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Beckman[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor leaguer; fails WP:GNG. Wizardman 14:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Not notable. Amazing how this article has been around since 09.--Yankees10 17:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly not notable for his baseball career.. his radio career has more promise but he doesnt seem to have much coverage. Spanneraol (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. Alex (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:39, 21 October 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 08:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomotaka Okamoto[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. A search using his Japanese name here was unsuccessful as was checking the foreign language Wikipedia pages on the subject. Do not believe the page meets GNG or MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 13:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 13:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, Okamoto has charted, which satisfied #2 of WP:MUSICBIO: [20]. His top charting is #120 for a single, #100 for album, but this is the general music chart, and I assume is quite good for a classical music artist. Oricon also says that he has appeared on television 79 times in the last couple of years [21], and the home pages of some of these shows confirm this: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] (the last a quite popular show). In terms of coverage, there are a number of articles on the net with significant coverage, including on Oricon, CD Journal (multiple articles), [28], [29], etc. And there is a book about him: [30] [31]. He is signed to a major label [32], and a major talent agency [33]. He has released more than two albums from Universal Music Japan, which satisfies #5 of WP:MUSICBIO [34]. And he has won an award: [35]. And he has done the theme song for a network TV show [36], which satisfies #10 of WP:MUSICBIO. I believe this is enough to satisfy notability criteria. Michitaro (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand quite what the "Japanese search" above is, but if you just put 岡本知高 into Google (note no space needed), there is masses of obvious coverage. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:MUSICBIO with flying colors. Google News is misleading because it is only limited to news articles (and so will not include things like books and charts) in the last 30 days. All a GNews search can really tell you is whether they've been in the news very recently. — Gwalla | Talk 18:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep obviously inaccurate WP:BEFORE, meets MUSICBIO and GNG per Michitaro's analysis. Cavarrone 05:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miodrag Petković (fighter)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Don't see this as notable both as a Mixed martial artist or grappler. His grappling record peaks as a participant in ADCC. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier MMA fights. The article's references are just routine sports results reporting so he doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and I don't believe appearing twice at the ADCC is sufficient to show notability, especially when he won no fights at either appearance. Papaursa (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet the notability requirements for MMA fighters, martial artists, or the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Myers (actor)[edit]

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

unsourced BLP The Banner talk 06:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hurry - I added sources. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazing, the last six years nobody added any sources. The Banner talk 12:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: No longer unreferenced. "Deletion is not cleanup". Reminder to nominator to carry out WP:BEFORE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Always a good argument to hit the nominator when nobody else, including the editor now complaining, took care about the article. The Banner talk 12:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as keep as nominator, as issues are solved. I never expected that the article would be able to be sourced after being unsourced for six years. The Banner talk 12:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as keep as the nominator -I understand- is withdrawing the nomination. The Banner, as far as I am concerned, I saw this article for the first time today. That is the reason I had not edited it before. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Party(2014 Film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no reliable sources appear to be available (only sources given are Wikia, and the article itself is identical to the one that appears there). Nikkimaria (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this movie ultimately passes notability guidelines. I wish them well, but at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not meet any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Thesixthstaff (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON st170e^talk 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NF in all ways. Despite the article's author probably being the purported director, it has absolutely no coverage. The "film" can be watched on a Wikia, but appears to be something very amateur... created by kids who had a free afternoon, their parent's camera, and nothing else to do. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of any notability, most likely self-promotional. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Run! There's Dinosaurs In The City (comic)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no secondary coverage found on acursory search. Self-published work on Deviantart --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- EvilLair (talk to me!) 05:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, no claim of notability. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsocial Amigos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable book by non notable author. The author is likely the article creator. Three single purpose accounts and an IP were used in creating and editing this article. References are first party and non-reliable. First AfD was cut short by speedy deletion. Safiel (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable book. Agree with nominator. jni&;^(delete)_{...just not interested} 11:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
should not be deleted as the book has notability. references and citations are valid enough. Not agreed with the nominator. Can be considered once. Tookmeaway (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The author is awarded for the book, the book has ranked amongst top 5 in Goodreads list of books having rape as as a theme. References are valid and substantial enough to prove the book's notability. Can be considered for undo the deletion and closing the discussion. Tookmeaway (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) 13:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Kindly Remove the afd tag as soon as possible as the article has relevant reliability and is notable. Tookmeaway (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC) > — Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Reasons for deletion are baseless and cannot be entertained Author is a notable author. Check references. The allegation of self creation of the article by the author himself cannot be proved so is irrelevant. References are reliable enough and have notability. Check them. Don't delete the article. Consider undo the AfD tagging respectively. The removing of article can harm the goodwill of an established author and notable book. Tookmeaway (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — Tookmeaway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Article has five references, four of which come from two sources. Don't believe this passes notability guidelines. st170e^talk16:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete .Out of 5 two references come from similar sources. Two different citations can be donr from a singe website as two different references. Rest are individual sources. There are many other such articles with similar kind of references live on wikipedia (some are even worse) so why this article should be deleted? This article should remain live and the AfD tag should be duly removed. 223.176.20.114 (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC) — 223.176.20.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete and salt - the sources include a goodreads review written by the author himself and a non-WP:RS personal blog. Effectively un-sourced. Nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. The sources provided aren't "different sources from the same site" - they are the same sources listed more than once. The ISBN of the book isn't a "source" and the goodreads list? - "Anyone can add books to this list." - more self-publishing. We would need entirely new sources that constitute "significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources" to even begin considering this for inclusion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non-notable book. Self-published sources do not confer notability. Reyk _YO! 01:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
dont delete as none of the reviews are written by the author himself. Kindly get your facts right. And yes though anyone can add books to listopia but its ranking depends on readers' votes and book's creditibility. So it isn't self published and hence confers notability. I hope your claims are invalid and book should be considered for article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.167.107.139 (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

Wikipedia: Unsocial Amigos is a contemporary romance fiction novel, by Aikat

Goodreads: Unsocial Amigos by Aikat (Goodreads Author). Published April 9th 2014 by Aikat

Obviously written by "Aikat", the author. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not enough for listing the book as not notable. The book has been ranked on a worldwide booklist in the top 5 charts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.167.107.188 (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've unbolded the comments by User:Tookmeaway after his first "keep" argument since they could be construed as additional keep votes. Tookmeaway, it would be better if you were to preface each new statement with "Comment" like I've put before my statement or perhaps "Response", if you're responding to another person's comment. Also, I want to state that while I am using the term "vote", AfDs are not decided based upon which side has more people commenting (keep or delete) but upon the strength of the arguments themselves and how they fit within Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. As far as the other arguments, I'm going to post another response below: Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads, Listopia, and other similar sites are considered to be self-published sources as anyone can post a review and the reviews undergo no editorial oversight. While yes, things posted by the author would be seen as WP:PRIMARY sources and thus be unusable for notability purposes, his not writing the review or article does not mean that they would automatically be considered something that would be usable per Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. (WP:RS) An example of a reliable source would be an article or review by the Times of India or the New York Times. Now when it comes to other articles on Wikipedia, the existence of other articles does not mean that every article should be kept. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Sometimes those articles pass notability guidelines in ways that this article may not, but in most cases it is just that those articles haven't been found and deleted yet. As far as the book's popularity goes, popularity does not always mean that something is notable. (WP:ITSPOPULAR). Being popular does make it more likely that there will be usable reliable sources, but it is never a guarantee. In the case of book rankings, we cannot accept book rankings as proof of notability because there have been multiple cases in the past where people have manipulated book rankings (and rankings in general) to gain attention. There was even a case where someone manipulated the New York Times Bestselling List in order to gain attention, which is perhaps one of the most well known (and up to that point most respected) rankings list in the United States. Now I'm not saying that anyone manipulated the lists for this book, but this is why we cannot use rankings anywhere to really show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. I really hate to say this, but if any of the people editing the Wikipedia article or this AfD are the same person, please be aware that while your intentions may be good, creating multiple accounts to appear like separate people is seen as WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and is against Wikipedia's policies. There are ways to check for this, so if any of you have done this or are debating about doing this, please don't. If you were asked to come here to sway the argument, it would be good to state that you were asked to come here. This could be seen as WP:CANVASsing or WP:MEAT if you are not transparent about how you were asked to come to Wikipedia. I really, really don't want to sound like I am trying to WP:BITE the newbies, but I do want to stress upon you the importance of Wikipedia's rules. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Goodreads.com is fine for this book. Notability for them doesn't mean notability for Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually for Goodreads, all they require is that the book was announced in some form or fashion. I've seen people add information for books that never released, despite announcements on their websites and at publisher websites. The bar for additions to their database is so incredibly low that it's pretty much nonexistent- all you have to do is ask a librarian to add the book for you. (So basically I'm agreeing with you, but further explaining why a listing at Goodreads means little to nothing on here.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom a non-notable book and note that in the Previous AFD it was speedy Deleted.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daksh Farm[edit]

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

non notable farm. The claimed notability can not be supported based on a single article in a newspaper that seems to be essentially a press release DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial claims of notability. st170e^talk 16:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited notability. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article is on main page. Please renominate once it has been taken down. (See section 6 of Wikipedia:Speedy keep) (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese people who conserve Article 9[edit]

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

This does not meet the notability guidelines for events. The article talks about people, but is really about the nomination event; this event has no discernable impact, does not have wide geographic impact (because the lack of winning barely impacts anyone beyond who signed), and has not received major coverage nor is its coverage likely to be lasting. People who are not awarded a Nobel Prize can hardly be said to be notable based on that fact alone. At best, this very loose movement merits a sentence or two on the Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution article or at 2014 Nobel Peace Prize. See also, WP:NOTNEWS. Knight of Truth (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this is, as I write, on the main page in the Do You Know section. As a rule DYK articles are all supposed to be vetted to check if they pass basic Wikipedia policies per WP:WIADYK. Michitaro (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Howell[edit]

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

Not notable. Despite the claim that this is a best selling book on Amazon, they have an amazing lack of reviews. Promotional article, it seems. Dennis 2¢ 01:12, 19 October 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 October 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article claimed that this is an Amazon UK bestseller. I removed the claim because it is unsupported. According to Amazon UK it is only available as a Kindle ebook, not in print, and it ranks as number 271,571 in UK sales -- hardly a bestseller. This was the only claim to notability in the article, without it I see no basis to keep this entry. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tchaliburton st170e^talk 16:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid claim of notability. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Agnew[edit]

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

Only very local sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, of the four sources here two are primary ones (i.e. his profiles on the webpages of organizations he's directly involved with), and the other two are community newspapers of the type whose coverage focus is too localized to prove that a person belongs in an encyclopedia with an international audience. Metroland weeklies would acceptable for some additional confirmation of facts after enough "major media" sourcing had been added to cover off his basic notability, but they cannot confer notability if they are the best sources you can come up with. (Although I can't prove anything, I have to note that this article in this form is exactly the sort of quasi-promotional, badly sourced mess that normally sets off my "subject is trying to create an article about himself for publicity purposes" WP:COI alarm.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if better sourcing than this can be brought into the mix, but in this state it's definitely a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak keep - The subject has received adequate coverage in reliable sources, thus meeting WP:BASIC, although not by a strong margin. Source examples include:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Toronto is a Metroland community weekly, and thus does not count toward getting a person over WP:GNG (I already explained why in my earlier comment.) And the Toronto Sun link you provided is a "peek inside this person's condo" feature in the Homes section — which is also not the kind of coverage it takes to get a person over the bar (it counts for about as much as the "What are you wearing today?" column in the fashion section, because it's not substantive coverage of anything encyclopedically relevant about the person.) The Canoe link is a good source, but not enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first four paragraphs of the Toronto Sun article provide biographical information about the subject and his becoming the host of a television program. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote above to weak keep, as per the local nature of some of the sources I provided. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Northamerica1000's reference collection is enough to scrape over the line. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not convinced by the "only local coverage" argument in discounting passing WP:GNG, particularly when that "local" place is a major metropolitan area of over 5.5 million people. If coverage was only from the Podunk Gazette, I'd consider that it might not have notability outside of a very limited geographical location and population. I don't see Inside Toronto as a source to discount simply because it's published weekly and not "major" enough just as the weekly and not relatively "major" The Village Voice or LA Weekly wouldn't be discounted as valid sources for the same reasons. --Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music 19 (N.Z. series)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Unreferenced in ~ five years. No obvious reliable sources to use as references in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can we just take care of these all at once instead of one at a time? There are a number of these in the New Zealand and Australia series of these compilations with no indication of independent notability. They sell well because of the "brand", which does have an article, but there is no significant coverage on the individual volumes. Attempts to redirect are continually reverted by IPs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:53, 13 October 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) 01:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. No indication of SIGCOV. And again as per nom, all these non-notable compilation albums should be dealt with together. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marikina City Central Business District[edit]

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

The term "Marikina City Central Business District" is simply not used anywhere in the internet outside of this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Little more than an unreferenced list of shops in an area; if there were references, perhaps something here might be merged to Marikina#Economy but I am seeing nothing of substance, including on Highbeam which includes Philippines newspapers. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable CBD. I used this search string in Google. Only 4 results (excluding the WP article, this AfD, and mirrors of WP), and none of them are reliable. - Takeaway (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CBD simply does not exist. It does only in the mind of the author.--RioHondo (talk) 22:47, 21 October 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. Dennis - 2¢ 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Alcohol Education Program[edit]

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

small scale local program; highly promotional article, tho my G11 was declined. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 11 October 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) 01:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the nominator stated, a highly promotional article. Gloss 03:48, 20 October 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. Dennis - 2¢ 01:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sider conference[edit]

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

I'm not sure this is a notable enough conference. The sources listed confirm its existence but secondary sources aren't clear. It may be an issue of WP:BIAS though. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 5 October 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) 14:01, 11 October 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) 01:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are most likely many other conferences with even more recognition than this one which still don't meet any criteria on here in terms of notability. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I also mention the overall layout of the article isn't exactly appealing too. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:37, 25 October 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. Dennis - 2¢ 01:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GeoLotto[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with abt. 6500 Google hits. Also (self?)promo for this in mid September 2014 launched lottery. The Banner talk 15:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The former name GeoSweep also brings up less than 6k hits. The Banner talk 15:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 11 October 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) 01:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this just about crosses the threshold. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Sam Walton (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by User:Samwalton9 - passes WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Taft[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fluff, promotional piece with no real claim to notability. Dennis 2¢ 01:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just now noticed the previous AFD, which had the correct result but very little participation, so I don't mind a larger audience take a look for a week, if it lasts that long. Dennis 2¢ 01:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the exception of this bit, which is not so much about her as it is about the guy she replaced, I don't see any secondary sources discussing her, just lots of silly "Look who had a baby" bits from the station she works for. Cannolis (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above observations are correct. There's very, very little info out there: her new employer being sued by the former job occupant (but Taft is not the focus of the article); having a baby. Nothing shows notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:31, 23 October 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 Withdraw then redirect to List of schools in the East Riding of Yorkshire#Primary schools. Withdrawing to redirect per my friends below. I should have just done that to begin with, as that is the normal procedure. I blame it on old age. Dennis - 2¢ 15:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tickton Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school with no claim of notability. Dennis 2¢ 00:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect - per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List of schools in the East Riding of Yorkshire#Primary schools (where I've added it) and tag as ((R to list entry)) per Carrite. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Dennis Brown per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Hills Car Club[edit]

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

I cleaned up a little, but looking for sources showed me nothing of value. The sources in the article are extraordinarily weak, and I deleted the PRWire as obviously not a reliable source. Like most car clubs, they just aren't notable, no matter how international their clientele. Dennis 2¢ 00:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I seem to have accidently recreated this speedily deleted page while attempting to procedurally close this AfD. The recreated article should be speedily deleted and this AfD should be closed. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Glass Addiction[edit]

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

a single case report does not make for ntoability DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This may be worth a very brief mention on the Google Glass page, but this is not notable enough for a standalone article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs in Google Glass, if anywhere. Basie (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spare mention in GG article; otherwise just a time-filler piece for the local health report where it's read rip-and-read without further elaboration. Nate • (chatter) 10:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single patient described in a case report on a disorder that the authors acknowledge is 'not officially a clinical diagnosis according to the most recent version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)'. It will make for nice headlines though. Lemnaminor (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News story, and rather trivial at that, as per comments above. No real value as a standalone article that I can see at this point, although it might just about make a sentence in Google Glass. Libby norman (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This is a special case of a more general issue which we seem to cover at mobile phone overuse. That's not a very good page currently but this is a well-recognised social issue now and, as such devices become increasingly wearable and intimate, we'll be hearing a lot more about it. Per our editing policy, we can merge this case into a more general article like that pending further developments. Andrew (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on delete - perhaps a merge would be necessary if this was a reoccurring news story but it seems like a silly story for a slow news day. Gloss 03:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:JUSTBECAUSEITCOMESUPONTHESIDEOFYOURFACEBOOKDOESNOTMEANITNEEDSANARTICLE--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:29, 26 October 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.