< 23 October 25 October >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. copyvio from [1] Secret account 05:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophy Gardner[edit]

Sophy Gardner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon - candidates in elections are not notable. She will be if she is elected. Fails WP:SOLDIER as well. No other indication of notability Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources include this one, this one, this one, plus check this out. Also here and here and here and mention here in the BBC, plus the numerous other articles above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Also here; plenty of in-depth sources means she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia, so media coverage of the candidacy does not contribute to getting the candidate over WP:GNG. The media are legally and ethically required to give coverage to all candidates in any election in their coverage area, so the existence of said coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE — short of an unusual case on the order of the international media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell, if you cannot properly source that she was already notable enough for an article before she became a candidate, then she has to win the election to become notable enough and coverage of the candidacy itself cannot boost her notability in the meantime. Further, [2] and [3] are both primary sources that cannot contribute to her notability at all. Update: Should have added [4] as well; that's an article that she wrote herself, making it yet another invalid PRIMARYSOURCE. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there a Wikipedia guideline that says "Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia"? And when is a RAF leader "routine"?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there a Wikipedia guideline that says "Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia"? WP:NPOL simply does not permit "unelected candidate" as a claim of notability in and of itself. A person cannot claim notability under NPOL until they win election to a notable office; absent that, you have to be able to source them over some other notability criterion (e.g. as a musician, as a writer, as an athlete, etc.) so that their failure to pass NPOL is irrelevant.
And when is a RAF leader "routine"? I didn't say that it was — WP:ROUTINE is a property of the coverage, not of the person. Regardless, being in the RAF is not the thing that the sources you offered are covering her for. There's been no demonstration here that she got substantive coverage for the RAF — of all the sources you offered above, the invalid primary sources are the only ones that are covering her specifically in the RAF context. All of the reliable sources are covering her in the context of the candidacy, and are mentioning her past with the RAF only by way of background. Which is not the type of sourcing it takes to confer notability on her time with the RAF in and of itself — RS coverage of her time in the RAF, contemporary to her time in the RAF, is what it would take. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rule says Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", so the issue of "unelected candidate" is irrelevant -- clearly she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you have given us are local newspaper articles (yes, they do tend to write about local political candidates), her profile on a business website and a few mentions in articles relating to the RAF. This does not establish notability. It's purely routine coverage. If we accepted this as proof of notability then a large percentage of the population would be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see how Gloucester is a "local" place when it has a population of 123,000 persons. Serving in the Royal Air Force is a national endeavor which she did with notable distinction; so is running for Parliament. Not sure how the coverage is "routine" since it varies considerably -- it is not the same story running again and again, but rather new and different stories, in-depth, as required by the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Local" means "not national"! We usually only accept substantial coverage in the national press as proof of notability. She was a wing commander in the RAF, which is a mid-ranking officer and not sufficient for notability (usually we would require her to be at least an air commodore). Being a parliamentary candidate does not mean someone is notable; this is a long-established standard. There are tens of thousands (at least) of political candidates internationally every year. "Routine" coverage means she has only been covered for "routine" things: being an RAF spokesman and a political candidate, for instance. Sorry, but nothing makes her stand out as a person more notable than any other person. If we had articles on everyone who was good at their job, stood for election and was written about because of it in the local press then we just wouldn't be a serious encyclopaedia. There have to be limits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By your "not national" logic, then, neither all mayors of US cities would not be considered notable, nor US governors, nor presidential candidates who lost, nor candidates for US senate who lost, pretty much the encyclopedia would be limited to persons elected to national office. This is absurd; Wikipedia covers numerous candidates, mayors, members of Parliament (elected and unelected candidates too) because they meet the WP:GNG not because of some rule that only elected national candidates are notable. Or, in the United Kingdom, city mayors would not be notable simply because they were not national politicians, which again clearly does not make sense. Your argument that somehow the existing sources are "routine" is vacuous; routine means repeated regular stuff, nothing about the sources is routine. Rather, seems like you are simply voting delete because you don't like it and making up rules to skirt the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you must have either misread or misunderstood. I said routine coverage in local media did not make someone notable. I did not say that one had to hold national office to be notable. Clearly mayors of major cities and state governors hold major offices and are covered in the national media. And unelected candidates for the Senate or Parliament are not notable for that alone, although they may of course be notable for something else. In fact, I am following Wikipedia's long-established standards for notability. It is you who seems to be saying WP:ILIKEIT and pointing to a collection of minor local news stories and official mentions of her doing her job as a mid-ranking officer as proof of her "notability"! You may notice that as yet you are a lone voice here? Why do you think that might be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my problem is the whole idea of "local" is, in my view, very much in the eye of the beholder, and if you see "local" as "not national", as you wrote above, then frankly most newspapers, everywhere, since they invariably focus on a local area (city, town, county, state), would not contribute to notability. So we're left with say USA Today or in Britain The Guardian. If one's idea of "local" is size-related, then a city of 120,000 persons is clearly not insignificant, which Gloucester is. Frankly, I would have revamped the page earlier, and so many people have come across the substandard article, with their eyes glazing over with boring discussions such as this one between you and me, that they just vote Delete out of boredom, even though (in my view) she's notable. Just that I'm probably not going to revamp this article, even if it stays; got other stuff to do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there, I think, is possibly the crux of the matter. You do not understand how the British media works and assume it works the same way as the American media does. This is not the case. We have about ten national newspapers (all printed in London) and many local papers, which generally cover only very small areas (usually a single town or city or an area of a county) and generally only report on very localised issues (my local paper, in a city of well over 300,000 people, largely reports on such issues as the refurbishment of shopping centres, the efforts of local councillors to improve the drains, and the injury of locals in road accidents; it does not have anything to say on government policy or international affairs, since that is not its remit). Unlike America, most people who read newspapers read a national paper, although they may also buy a local paper for purely local news. Only the national papers are really valid in terms of establishing notability, as the local papers will report copiously on anything of local interest, including local councillors and candidates. If someone is not covered in the national press then it's a fair bet that they are not really notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I "understand" British media correctly. If there's a "local" paper such as the Gloucester Citizen, then it won't have any national articles like this one in it, or this one, or this one about the royal couple's upcoming due date. Or, maybe since the Duke and Duchess are covered in the Gloucester citizen, then they're not notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will notice that comments beneath the first article have queried why it's in a local paper in the first place, the second article is relevant to Gloucestershire and mentions a Gloucestershire farm, the third, well, the Royal Family are the Royal Family and everyone likes to write about them. My point stands. There is a big difference in Britain between national and local media that is perhaps not so obvious in some other countries. Your last sentence is patently ridiculous, since they are covered in the national media. A lot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see how "all of the sourcing here is of the primary variety" -- do you mean the current article, or sources I've pointed out here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the article. Let's go over them, shall we? #1: Alumni newsletter of the elementary school she attended; #2: RAF; #4: her own LinkedIn profile; #5: Labour Party website; #6: profile on the webpage of a company she works for; #7: RAF; #8: Labour Party newsletter; #10: Labour Party newsletter. WP:PRIMARYSOURCES all. Leaves us with only #3, 9, 11 and 12, of which three are, guess what: more WP:ROUTINE coverage of the candidacy. Which means #3 is the only one that contributes anything to getting her over GNG, and one source isn't enough to put her over by itself. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the problem. You're basing your deletion on sources currently in the article (which I agree are clearly problematic). But article content does not determine notability -- and clearly there are numerous reliable independent secondary sources, listed in my previous posts on this page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:56, 18 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Commment Actually, WP:GNG doesn't mention local media at all. JTdale Talk 04:47, 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 REDIRECT to Vlad Yudin until such time as the topic meets WP:NF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catskill Park (film)[edit]

Catskill Park (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. I couldn't find any coverage of this film in independent reliable sources other than IMDB. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 19:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 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, Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 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. It seems unlikely that another relist would attract any more !votes. I have checked the references in the article and don't see the necessary coverage to establish notability. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Tanner[edit]

Simon Tanner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for failing WP:GNG since March 2008. Also, there are lots of tags on the article such as WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The article seems to be written like an advertisement for the person. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 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, Natg 19 (talk) 21:52, 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. Secret account 05:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SoCal Coyotes[edit]

SoCal Coyotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains largely promotional text about a minor league/semi-pro football team. Long list of references is composed of localized RS and first-party sources and other non-RS. No significant coverage in WP:RS outside the Palm Springs area, even in other parts of Southern California. Las Vegas RS is more about Mouse Davis personally than about the team. Koumz (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is established WP:GNG by widespread, reliable notable coverage WP:SIGCOV in Las Vegas Review Journal, including Page One photo, referenced SoCal Coyotes in another state as early as 2012, verifiable evidence WP:NRV that Mouse Davis was involved in the foundation of the organization. Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability is established WP:GNG via multiple examples of verifiable WP:NRV third-party, independent, widespread coverage WP:SIGCOV from the Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line.Gagliardi89 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.The article and subject meets applicable notability guidelines for sports teams WP:NSPORTS and organizations WP:ORG via significant national and international following and significant weekly coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources. List of references includes multiple third-party RS. Team is recognized by third-party sources as a developmental program, and is not a semi-pro team. Numerous players and coaches in article have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League and other top-level professional leagues, meeting notable criterion as defined in WP:NGRIDIRON. There is also significant interest in players of notability arising from their college football days WP:NGRIDIRON. Gagliardi89 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Organization notability must be determined in its own right and cannot be inherited from the notability of players associated with it. If the Coyotes really are notable nationally and internationally, why no coverage from Southern California's major national newspaper (located only 100 miles away), the Los Angeles Times? Koumz (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The organization is notable in its own right as a developmental minor-league sports team, which makes relevant its association and advancement of players and coaches to and from prominent leagues and colleges defined in WP:NGRIDIRON, as well as the significant interest in players of notability arising from college WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, that is a subjective question for the Los Angeles Times, whose coverage -- also subjective -- does not include minor-league or developmental teams, or hundreds of notable non-sporting organizations. If notability were determined only by coverage from a single major-market newspaper within a 100-mile radius, Wikipedia would have to banish most notable minor-league baseball teams, numerous notable minor-league football teams, and even some notable tier-1 Arena teams. Aside from football, the Coyotes are a non-profit sports leadership organization, recognized by mainstream educators and national periodicals for its curriculum and work within public schools. As a sports team, as with minor league baseball, the Coyotes have a national and international following for its developing players. News organizations in Sydney, Australia, home of ProKick Australia, which places state-side players, follow the organization via NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports radio, which broadcasts games. National coverage includes Bleacher Report and other periodicals. Within 100 miles, the Coyotes coverage includes notable print sources such as the Gannett Company's The Desert Sun; the Coachella Valley Weekly, and Press-Enterprise, mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC, KESQ-ABC, and NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports Radio. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Bleacher Report articles are written by the team's coach, David Miller. Not exactly an independent source. Nothing on the Football Educator website suggests that it is anything other than Ted Sundquist's personal website, however knowledgeable about football he may be.Koumz(talk) 19:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bleacher Report remains significant coverage WP:SIGCOV from a reliable Time-Warner-owned respected and notable national news source WP:GNG, Wiki-worthy and used as a verifiable source WP:NRV by numerous WP articles. Its published stories must meet strict factual editing and content guidelines. The Football Educator is significant coverage WP:SIGCOV from the corporate site of Ted Sundquist, a notable and Wiki-worthy national football authority, and an independent, third-party, peer-review source WP:NRV. The fact that NFL scouts alerted the Denver-based Sundquist (outside of Palm Springs or Southern California) WP:SIGCOV to the Coyote developmental program speaks to the national interest in the team. A barometer of notability is when people like Sundquist, independent of the subject itself, then actually consider the subject notable enough that they have written and published works that focus upon it. In this case, Sundquist, a two-time Super Bowl winner with the Denver Broncos, staked his reputation on his findings. The Coyotes have no other connection to Sundquist or his organization.Gagliardi89 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response If Bleacher Report really does have "strict guidelines", why did it allow Coach Miller to report on himself [5] (speaking in the third person as if he were an independent reporter rather than in the first person as would be correct if he were openly giving his opinion and claiming it as his opinion)? This is an obvious conflict of interest and violates one of the most fundamental principles of journalism, and the tone of Coach Miller's articles clearly promotes himself and all others mentioned in them. The Football Educator article also notes that Coyotes GM Sam Maggio was involved in editing the article, which call into question the independence of that article. Koumz (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response The Coyotes (according to website point-of-contact Maggio) were asked to fact-check team statistics and provide supporting white paper documentation to Sundquist's staff upon request -- Coyote curriculum, for instance, that they use in public schools. Bottom line, the Bleacher Report article contained enough noteworthy documentation to meet editorial criteria. Let's stay on point here: The facts remain that a developmental football leadership organization used all of its professional resources to mature an obscure quarterback and earn him a shot with a tier-one Arena Football team, which culminated with the three-time world champion San Jose Sabercats signing him to a professional contract. Subjective issues with 'tone' and criteria and guidelines of the editors of Bleacher Report should be addressed to their editorial board. 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Bleacher Report citation removed and replaced with a third-party reliable source.Gagliardi89 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been reformatted to make it fit a neutral encyclopedic tone. To date, article continues to be developed and improved, but should not be deleted. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the article is still not fully neutral. Your statement that it is calls into question your understanding of neutral tone. Koumz (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editing continues to improve the page, and any page that improves should not be deleted. The article continues to be developed and improved. It meets notability guidelines WP:GNG with verifiable sources WP:NRV of independent coverage WP:SIGCOV. Gagliardi89 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procanes.com, which may or may not be a reliable source, did not report on anything, it simply reposted an article from the Taft Midway Driller newspaper of Taft, California. The Midway Driller article WAS WRITTEN BY THE SoCal Coyotes (as noted on the Midway Driller website)! User:Gagliardi89's statement that this is independently-generated material about the Coyotes, regardless of who republishes it, is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. This is the second time this user has claimed articles generated by the Coyotes or their coach, J. David Miller, to be independent when they are not. User:Gagliardi89's ability to judge the independence of content SOURCES (not just wherever they might happen to be published or reposted, but who actually WROTE them) is clearly in question. Koumz (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procanes.com citation removed, and replaced with additional third-party reliable sources of significant coverage.Gagliardi89 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article establishes notability WP:GNG, has received and continues to receive significant coverage with WP:NRV verifiable objective evidence WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Numerous reliable sources and significant coverage WP:SIGCOV is demonstrated outside Palm Springs area, across Southern California, to Florida, to Nevada, to Hawaii, to Australia, and addresses the topic directly and in detail. Significant coverage is not a trivial mention. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies, published books and mainstream television news networks, which meets verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources encompass published works in all forms and media. There is also demonstration of secondary sources covering the subject, another good test for notability. There are numerous sources independent of the subject. Article establishes notability WP:GNG, has received and continues to receive significant coverage with WP:NRV verifiable objective evidence WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Gagliardi89 (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above about this user's understanding of independence of sources. Koumz (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article establishes notability WP:GNG, and contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage, including the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Desert Sun and Anza Valley Outlook. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV network television affiliates NBC-KMIR, ABC-KESQ. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies and mainstream television news networks.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Independent, widespread, notable, reliable, verifiable widespread coverage is current to October 14, 2014, with continued coverage on the Coyotes from NBC affiliate KMIR. Article continues to rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources. Gagliardi89 (talk) 20:38, 14 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, NorthAmerica1000 20:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Article meets notability guidelines with verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources. The evidence shows the topic has gained significant independent coverage and recognition since 2012. Sources of evidence include recognized publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources. Article establishes notability WP:GNG, and contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage, including the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Desert Sun and Anza Valley Outlook. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV network television affiliates NBC-KMIR, ABC-KESQ and CBS-NBC Sports Radio affiliate KXPS Team 1010. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies and mainstream television news networks. Per WP:GNG, significant coverage in independent sources makes deletion due to lack of notability inappropriate. Article continues to improve, has eliminated questionable sources and now pursuant to WP:GNG relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Struck Gagliard89's second "keep" !vote; you only get to !vote once in any given AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 15 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, Biblioworm 01:14, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Sunflower League football season[edit]

2011 Sunflower League football season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little notability, excess detail, no references. This article has been on the wiki for too long. --Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This nomination was not created properly. Listing on daily log for the first time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall talk 04:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 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, Dennis - 21:26, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oni Chichi[edit]

Oni Chichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pornographic video game. Only sources are to a retailer and some sort of IMDB type site. No coverage otherwise in reliable sources. Ponjuseme (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 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, Dennis - 21:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Elkins[edit]

Clarence Elkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article meets notability guidelines and I believe other wikipedia guidelines, however, the subject of the article has asked for the article to be deleted. The person who asked for the article to be deleted was the one who submitted the photo, so I believe it to be a legitimate request. On the talk page he posted:

"My name is Clarence Elkins Sr. I created this page and felt safe putting my information on the web. Since I created the page I have felt much stress & threatened from people trying to get in touch for all the wrong reasons due to my Wikipedia page. I've had enough stress in my life and I am asking you to please remove this page ASAP"

I'm not sure how these issues are typically handled, so I felt a discussion here would be the best solution. I am a major editor for the article and I feel it's an important topic and would wholeheartedly support keeping the article if it was at AFD, however, I also don't want the page to cause anyone any trouble. So, this is the issue at hand. Bali88 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That is a possible approach, but the only thing that makes that murder notable is the false conviction and imprisonment of Clarence Elkins. I believe that he is the primary topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. The murder itself is not notable. Also, if he's being contacted because of the article, that won't help things. That's the main issue: whether we should delete the article because the subject requests it. I feel for the guy. I really do. He's been to hell and back and I hate to think he's being harassed because of this. I brought the article up to Wikipedia standards to help make sure his story got the proper recognition, If the article is having a detrimental effect on the subject, we should consider whether the article is that important. Bali88 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Elkins needs to verify his identity through WP:OTRS and give us a much clearer and more detailed explanation of why this Wikipedia article in particular is causing him problems. Anyone hostile Googling him will find an abundance of other information even if we delete our article. What, precisely, is the problem here, Bali88? I consider the request to delete implausible at this time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I knew. I am not in contact with Elkins and do not know him personally. Personally, I think it's a legitimate request from him directly based on the fact that the same account that posted the photo (which was named something along the lines of "mom and Clarence") was the one that posted the request. I invited that poster to comment here at AFD, but I have no idea how often they check back or how familiar they are with wikipedia. In normal circumstances, I'd attempt to reach out elsewhere (facebook group, charitable foundation) but because he is specifically complaining about being contacted, I'll abstain. Personally, I feel like all of this information was found in news reports, not through original research, background check, etc, so whoever wants to get information about him can do the same. But I do feel bad for the guy. Bali88 (talk) 17:29, 31 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. Secret account 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Szepes[edit]

Lia Szepes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally a WP:PROD but thought I'd bring it here for additional views. A 1930s Hungarian actress who was the female lead in several films, and may possibly satisfy #1 of the entertainer guideline. On the other hand, largely unsourced so may simply fail WP:GNG, noting that sources on pre-War Hungarian cinema are most likely in hard copy and a little hard to find. Views welcome either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A difficult article, there is going to be very little on the net and even less in English. However I did find a source in the New York Times confirming her role in Marika, see here. JTdale Talk 05:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to mention -- I didn't find an article in the Hungarian Wikipedia, so no sources there.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Another vague mention here; [10] but I searched TROVE and the British Newspaper Archives, neither have any mention of her. JTdale Talk 10:19, 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. Questions about the scope and formatting of this article/dab page should be resolved on its talk page. Deor (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish seminary[edit]

Jewish seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This, as it is since long time, should be a Wictionary item. If not, should be written in detail and in encyclopedic language and style to "become" a Wikipedia article. Therefore I suggest its deletion either for RD to the dictionary or per WP:TNT. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Had not considered this point which is quite valid; suggestion would be to add a link from Yeshiva to Bais_Yaakov to show there is a distinction, to have a disambiguation page for this purpose seems superfluous. --Lfrankbalm (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 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) 01:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaphor[edit]

Aquaphor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to determine how this product is notable. There are dozens of petroleum jelly products, and this one does not appear to stand out from the rest. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minderbinder-de, I did not realise the page had been edited so recently before I sent it to AfD. Looking at what was removed, though, I completely agree with the editor who did the removal - the content was unsourced and somewhat promotional. Could it potentially be added back in? Of course. However, it would need a lot more sources. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the content was promotional, but some was not. When the brand was first registered (in 1925), by whom (Herman A. Metz), how it got transferred from a German company to Duke Laboratories and back: how is that promotional? And since when do we blanket delete in such cases, rather then tagging missing cites? Well, let this AfD run its course, and then improve the article. --Minderbinder-de (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS I hope Caroline Nmann is able to help us in achieving an improved and still neutral article. It's nice when people get the idea that we don't allow promo without making an unnecessary fuss about it as most do, and realise that having a neutral article is better than making a promo one that gets deleted. Peridon (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PPS There is no connection between me and Primefac. I removed the material after User:Jéské Couriano had tagged for speedy (spam), and declined his speedy. Had I not thought it either viable or potentially viable, I would have tagged it myself. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 28 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) 04:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Grande[edit]

Virginia Grande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of secondary notability from unaffiliated sources per WP:BIO and not meeting WP:SCHOLAR criteria. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 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 keep. The consensus is clearly to keep as a notable hoax. or parody site. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Report[edit]

National Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Further, currently is just a list of headlines that got picked up by other news agencies thinking they were legit or that others debunked. Only one sentence about the actual website. Page content is not actually about page title. Sources on page do not discuss the website/company itself or its notability. I think National Report is likely notable enough to have its own article, but current article needs WP:NUKEANDPAVE EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP by all means rewrite it. Martin451 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Queenietart and Sarahseehoward: Whether or not it's satire is not what's being discussed. That's currently being discussed on the article's talk page. Also, Wikipedia is not for public service announcements. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 19:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @evergreenfir, whether or not it is satire is most certainly being discussed and it NEEDS to be. It is inherently part of any discussion on whether or not the article should be deleted. It is noteworthy and deserving of an article precisely BECAUSE it is not satire. And for goddsakes, when someone calls it a public service announcement and you aren't processing that purely as a metaphor, it should not surprise me that you continue to believe National Report is satire. @Queenietart is completely correct. These articles exist to deliver accurate and true information on something like National Report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talkcontribs) 01:23, 22 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, Dennis - 17:00, 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 no consensus. Deor (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Seifer[edit]

Marc Seifer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR. The sources are all indicative of a certain fame within insular WP:FRINGE communities, but we need more than that for a WP:FRINGEBLP. jps (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you perhaps enlighten us how it can be verified that he's notable? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 20 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, Dennis - 16:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Article is far better than it was prior to your hard work and revisions. I don't know whether or not this person is considered notable enough to meet the requirements for inclusion. I still think that his work would be better represented as a citation in a Tesla entry, than as a stand alone article. If the article passes muster as a notable article, it is now of sufficient quality for inclusion.--Lfrankbalm (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talkcontribs) [reply]
Is the contention that book on Tesla qualifies as "a significant or well-known work" and he thus satisfies AUTHOR? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Buholzer[edit]

Sonja Buholzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This deletion discussion, created by  Sandstein  16:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC), is a procedural recreation of a previously malformed nomination by an IP editor, who offered the following rationale:[reply]

"This bio of a living person was clearly written for the purpose of commercial self-promotion. It is not written using a Neutral Point of View, providing no substantiation for adjectives such as "bestselling" and "widely known". It meets as good as no Verifiability criteria as what few sources there are belong to local publications (all in German except for one English interview with the subject) and several of the links lead to pages that are either inexistent or expired. It also shows almost No Original Research as most of the text is not sourced and reads like a sales pitch and/or excerpts from the subject's own books. Of the two external websites provided, one is the website to the subject's personal business, the other no longer or never existed. 223.25.192.230 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)"

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:33, 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) 22:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Kelleher[edit]

Colm Kelleher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a scientist, and having two published books doesn't automatically confer notability for a stand alone article. Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR.

Not to be confused with the science educator [14] or the financial executive [15] of the same name. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 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, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:27, 15 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, Dennis - 16:11, 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 redirect to List of Jamaican supercentenarians. j⚛e deckertalk 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Stewart[edit]

Ida Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pending case that has yet to be verified. As age hasn't been (fully) verified, it's original research to state she was the oldest living X. Living to a certain age does not make someone notable. PROD removed by User: Old Time Music Fan without an explanation. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 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, Dennis - 16:08, 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 No consensus. The different opinions range from clear keep, via merge (but no target identified), to delete. It also doesn't seem that another relist would lead to a clear consensus. The article as it stands is poorly sourced and indeed seems to contain quite a lot of OR/SYNTH, but those are problems that can be solved by editing. If, after pruning, this list is of a size that would justify merging, I would suggest military science fiction as a possible target. In any case, at this point it is clear that there is no consensus here and I am closing accordingly. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Supersoldiers in fiction[edit]

List of Supersoldiers in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Everything in this article is based on original research or unreliable sources. We can't just make our own observations about what is and is not a fictional supersoldier, that simply is not how Wikipedia works. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not generally considered a valid argument for keeping. Any content which is based on users deciding for themselves which items meet certain criteria and which don't is original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As previously stated, there are no clearly referenced solid definitions for other science fiction elements, such as rayguns, and they still have their own lists. I think we should just rename the article to "List of fictional soldiers" (That would be similar to "list of fictional extraterrestrials", "list of fictional books" and others). I think it comprises a good list as well. --Virtualerian (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand my point. It isn't whether or not we have a firm definition of what a super soldier is. It is if users are using their own judgement, as opposed to reliable sources, to decide if a particular fictional soldier meets that definition. Articles on fictional topics often suffer from this misunderstanding. What is required is a reliable source for each individual entry that identifies that specific fictional soldier as a supersoldier. If we don't have that, the entry should not be on the list. If there aren't enough sources to properly verify a stand alone list article then we shouldn't have one. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most fictional topics suffer from that indeed. I think it should renamed List of fictional soldiers in science fiction or something similar.--Virtualerian (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of my point. If we reduce this list only to what can actually be referenced, it might, maybe, contain two items. That's not enough for a list article. I've already removed a "in fiction" section from the parent article for these same reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are the Saurons (and Sauron Death's Heads, who are super-duper soldiers), the Morthans of David Gerrold's Star Wolf series, and Super Soldiers, just to name a few. Enough to justify a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you're saying that your interpretation of these books is that these characters meet the definition of "supersoldiers" as defined in the Wikipedia article. To me, that's analysis. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That is my whole point. If we are deciding for ourselves what is and is not a supersoldier, we're doing it wrong. Not one single entry has a ref that leads to a source that even uses the word "supersoldier". That means that this six-year-old article is 100% unverified. Yes, there do appear to be two refs, but one is to some sort of fan page and does not use the word "supersoldier" and the other is a webcomic that... I don't even know what it is or why anyone thought it was even relevant to this article. If there are , as has been suggested, users who are interested enough in this topic to try and find some actual sources, sources that clearly define specific entities as supersoldiers so that we aren't deciding for ourselves, I would suggest that those users either step up now and add those sources or that the article be userfied until such time as it is no longer in this unacceptable state. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said the Wikipedia definition is useless. The criterion I suggested was the fictional works themselves identifying their characters as supersoldiers. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that argument is that it implies that if enough users engage in original research that makes it ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick web search brought up this page (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/fws-topics-super-soldiers.html) as a major essay on the subject (again unreferenced) and various other references to "DARPA's Defense Sciences Office" projects. What I was attempting to point out was that there are a number of editors who obviously believe that the topic is of interest. I think that if just a few of them took the time to add a few references to the existing page then it would quickly fulfill the referencing requirements. There are a lot of lists on Wikipedia which could be accused of being original research. Until the original editors created the pages 2013 in literature or List of religious ideas in science fiction I very much doubt there was a single source of such information anywhere on the net. So in many ways it is original research but it includes references. It may be that the editors of the page under discussion have added in more commentary on the entries in their list than is usual for lists of this sort. But again I believe this indicates an editing requirement for the page rather than a blanket deletion (see citation notification on List of religious ideas in science fiction). Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:32, 16 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, Dennis - 16:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I have to say you are kind of all over the place with this remark. You start with saying to merge without really identifying where it should be merged to, then seem to advocate outright deletion, and finally userfication. If I was closing this discussion I would have no idea how to interpret this comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 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 keep. List presently meets criteria for lists of companies. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in Nebraska[edit]

List of breweries in Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination SpinningSpark 14:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:38, 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 withdrawn by nominator. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Ebola patients[edit]

List of notable Ebola patients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BIO1E Also, if they've got their own articles, this looks like unnecessary duplication and essentially a WP:content fork. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers[edit]

List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE by design. We cannot have lists of non-notable people. jps (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person who discovers a big hunk of rock hurtling through our solar system is notable in my book. Certainly a lot more than the innumerable professional athletes that litter Wikipedia. I feel that regrouping the former under this list is a reasonable compromise. This kind of information is not readily available elsewhere on the Internet. Urhixidur (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of argument. I'd also point to WP:IINFO. jps (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid criteria for living people. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. jps (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CSC #2 is explicitly limited with respect to people. Also, per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people, "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above." See the reference for details. If I understand things correctly, being notable for just one event may be enough, but proof of notability for that event is still required. I haven't yet checked, but unless reliable sources proving notability are found, every person in the article would have to be deleted. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Oops! Sorry, jps, I had the window open for an hour, and didn't notice you had already responded. Well...I agree --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:CSC are co-equal on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. On this particular topic where the members are just as notable today (i.e., they discovered something for all time) as they will be 10 million years from now (assuming human history lasts that long), there is very little else with RS sources on Wikipedia which will still be remotely notable 10 million years from now. This may be a case where WP:IAR and WP:COMMON apply. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proof of notability is not lacking: you only need check the Minor Planet Center's lists of discovery circumstances. As for the information being recoverable from our lists of minor planets, that may be true (albeit with a fair amount of grunt work) but what about those astronomers who have also discovered supernovae (such as Masakatsu Aoki)? There does not seem to be a list of supernova discovery data on Wikipedia.
« I could just as easily say that whoever discovers any object whatsoever is inherently notable ». Not all objects are equal. Minor planets are big, move fast, and some could ruin millions of people's days. Discovering one is certainly comparable to discovering an island (back in the old days of the Age of Discovery), for one.
Anyway, what about WP:CSC as ajustification? "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" although the list itself is reasonably notable —seems to fit this case. Urhixidur (talk) 12:16, 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 no consensus due to insufficient participation. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Buholzer[edit]

Sonja Buholzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The comes down to a lack of WP:RS resulting in a failure to pass WP:BIO. One book and a few mentions on social bookmarking sites doesn't make a suitable entry, and hence this appears more like WP:ADVERT. Trident13 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2010 (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 deckertalk 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratsada E[edit]

Ratsada E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only ghits I see are parroting this page. I can't even prove it really existed, no less was notable in any way. As always, would loved to be proven wrong, but as it is with zero sources and none available, fails WP:V Dennis 14:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:20, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20 to 1 (darts)[edit]

20 to 1 (darts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines; no sources given which indicate what is notable or significant about these rules, or even where they come from 331dot (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:17, 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 Nomination withdrawn.

AC Locomotive Group[edit]

AC Locomotive Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could find no evidence of notability. Only reference is the group's own website, found no coverage in any news media. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Discussion produced sources that show the subject is notable. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "no evidence", did you look in the railway heritage printed press? Or is it just, "I Googled it and most of the first page was their own website, so there can't be much out there"? I know you've been busy: three days on WP and already 81 articles created. Sorry, pages. Now it's time to get a few articles deleted and then it'll be off to RfA before the weekend. Obviously no time yet to read WP:IMPERFECT.
Yes, this is a crap unreferenced article. That is still no reason to delete it. Once upon a time[citation needed] we used to write articles here. Then other people used to expand articles. Nowadays we don't bother with that tiresome stuff, we just play the Great Wiki Game of pissing all over others' work for fun and profit (Wikimania, 2014). Much more exciting. Much better rewards. You'll have that admin's tin star and shiny purple helmet in no time.
As to the notability of the AC loco group, then don't ask me, I'm no RS. But people who do own locos, like the NRM and several of the major loco leasing companies, seem to regard them as substantial enough to be trusted as curators for the electric parts of the national collection. The RCTS list them alongside commercial train operating companies, although it's only a couple of current mainline registered locos, so that clearly doesn't count.[17] Or even just the electric operating companies like ETL, who used the ACLG for heavy maintenance tasks.[18] That would all tend towards suggesting they're a real museum group and worth regarding moderately seriously. Not in the same league as the Belgian Comic Strip Center of course, but just maybe worth a few bytes on Wikipedia, on the off chance that some poor benighted fool with no ambitions for climbing the greasy mop might actually come along one day and work on usefully improving content? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bite the newbie. I nominated this article in good faith, because the article offered no evidence of notability, and a search of the Google News archive, Books, and Scholar found no coverage of the group. A regular Google search found brief mentions on a number of websites, but nothing that could be considered real coverage by a reliable source. That doesn't mean I'm convinced coverage does not exist, only that I was unable to find it after what I feel to be due diligence. I understood the purpose of this discussion to be to find reasons to keep the article, which you are very welcome to provide. Please don't be too quick to draw conclusions as to my character or purpose, as neither are relevant to this discussion. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 14:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be so quick to think that because you can do something, it's a constructive thing to do. I don't understand baseball, so I refrain from running amok and deleting baseball articles. It's also pretty clear that there are many ways to ask a community or project for assistance or opinions as to notability. But no, that tempting little AfD button always calls first... It's just so _important_. A whole article vanishes! You've changed things forever! Whee! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my quick Google search, I found a few references that support the group's notability: The Railway Magazine, Volume 152 (Google Books), also see this article on the magazine's website, Electric Traction News cites the group in a few articles and press releases, RCTS lists their current TOPS locomotive pool codes, as noted above, the National Railway Museum in York uses the society as a resource for parts and to house locomotives (as noted for British Railways electric locomotive Bo-Bo Class 84, No 84001). They even had a locomotive bear the group's name as noted in Electric Railway, Volumes 51-52 (Google Books). I'm sure I could find additional reliable sources with further research. Slambo (Speak) 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found some of these sources before nominating the article, but got hung up on them not being 'significant coverage'. In retrospect that was a silly distinction to make in this case, probably stemming from a misunderstanding of the notability guideline. I'll be withdrawing the nomination. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:22, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlackPanther OS[edit]

BlackPanther OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:35, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mô hình Gaussian hỗn hợp[edit]

Mô hình Gaussian hỗn hợp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this article created in different language in English Wikipedia page and also it dose not mention any reference link to check the authenticity of the article Alexbacho (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:36, 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invite Jesus Into Your Life (Vol1)[edit]

Invite Jesus Into Your Life (Vol1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod. It is something of a struggle to find the kind of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to suggest that this book satisfies the general notability guideline. VeryCrocker (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This seems more like an advertising attempt. There's no information here as to why it's notable enough to be included. Mandybrigwell (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book has notable needed, i just verified it on google, check it out for yourself and you'll see ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.92.63 (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you guyz check this link http://www.caribbeancommunitylive.com/content/nortreus-werley-artist-christian-author-and-drummer-cap-haitien-haiti, it's everywhere online, look (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

http://searchcelebrities.com/celebrity-news/christian-singer-and-author-of-the-book-of-invite-jesus-into-your-life-werley-nortreus-is-saving-thousands-and-thousands-of-souls-worldwide-for-jesus-christ-learn-more-about-his-ministry-and-how-his/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) 11:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are many other sources like http://gospelartistspeoplenews.com/2013/12/29/book-released-and-review-invite-jesus-into-your-life-vol1-by-gospel-singer-werley-nortreus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) 12:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Ceraphin1 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Ceraphin1 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:37, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 Talk 04:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russification of Ukraine[edit]

Russification of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was speedy delete db-all, but it looks politically controversial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Changing to speedy keep, given there has been no response from the nominator. JTdale Talk 04:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:52, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Willing[edit]

Todd Willing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find very little notability to this article, it is entirely unreferenced and biased in perspective to, with statements such as He is one of the most influential people from his birthplace Hobart, Tasmania. Google brings up lots of hits where the articles subject is the spokesperson for Ford on a new car design, but very very little indepth coverage. It is simply words "Todd Willing, Design Director for Ford Australia says...". Most indepth article was this; [19]. JTdale Talk 08:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G7 - author blanking article. Hack (talk) 14:56, 31 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.

Felisha Faye Mendes[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete. Clear case of A7. Notability not asserted. Alexf(talk) 10:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felisha Faye Mendes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for independent secondary sources finds little to support notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Cult of Green (talk) 03:11, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Testini[edit]

Sage Testini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography with questionable notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:POINT and WP:HOAX. Then read them again. And then, for good measure, read them a third time. Then write a blog about what you learned from that. Bearcat (talk) 08:10, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Energy System[edit]

Smart Energy System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable system written as a position paper or advertisement. The only apparent reference is their own--the term, of course, is so general as to be unsearchable. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strongly opposed to the redirect, but neither do I think it's needed. This seems an unlikely search term, which is the purpose of redirects. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why you think it is an unlikely search term? The phrase appears to be in widespread use e.g. 1.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my semi-objection to the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Redirect Smart grid is a electrical system that can detect what is happening to the grid, Smart Energy System is supposed to be a concept of storing renewable energy in the way we store fossil fuels EoRdE6 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Deletion Review, copyright permission has been legally granted to Wikipedia through the OTRS system. I don't have access to OTRS, so I'm taking it on good faith that everything was done properly. I do note, however, that the copyright holder is not the author, but (as is typical with scientific journals), it is the journal publisher (Copyright © 2014, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.). I assume the OTRS folks are savvy enough to understand this distinction and have verified that the publisher has indeed granted permission, not just the authors. Until that assumption is shown to be false, G12 does not apply. That's not to say the article shouldn't be deleted for other reasons, such as G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Striking that part of my !vote now. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:54, 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 move to draft:Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists. If David Clarke can manage to limit the vanity stuff, an article about the church itself may stick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists[edit]

Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published book with no secondary coverage; fails WP:NB. Article created by author. Blackguard 02:31, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bierton Crisis[edit]

The Bierton Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published book with no secondary coverage; fails WP:NB. Article created by author. Blackguard 02:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:57, 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 Redirect to Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. Although I personally don't see this as a likely search term, the consensus here seems to be going towards a merge/redirect. Anything worth merging elsewhere is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan[edit]

Threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD that isn't notable. NickGibson3900 Talk 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This is an important topic. This page should not be deleted.

Within the page itself it is evident that there is a possibility of nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Users of Wikipedia have the right to remain informed on this vital issue.

Maakhter (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please understand that while Wikipedia will record information about current events that are in the news, we are not a news site ourselves (WP:NOTNEWS), nor are we a forum to report on various different issues. We are here to inform, but in the context of an encyclopedia. The type of informing you are referring to is more appropriate for news sites, forums, blogs, and the like. There's just no real need for a separate article if it's already covered in another article. The only way you can show otherwise is to add plenty of references to show that nuclear war specifically needs its own page outside of the main article entry. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which guidelines and policies were used to create following pages?


Cuban missile crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis


Cold War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War


Nuclear arms race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race

The nuclear arms race was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War.


Soviet Union–United States relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations


Maakhter (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about these pages?


Cuban missile crisis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis


Cold War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War


Nuclear arms race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race

The nuclear arms race was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War.


Soviet Union–United States relations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations


When these pages will be deleted or merged?

Maakhter (talk) 17:56, 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 Merge to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.. Basically, per EEng. This is indeed a collection of hugely bloated articles, oversourced and full of forgettable trivia, notwithstanding the fact that the writing style and skill with which these articles have been made are at a professional level. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gernatt Family of Companies[edit]

Gernatt Family of Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's notability as a local company with primarily local references is in question. As discussed on the article's talk page, the article primarily uses local sources with the subject in question being sparingly featured in most. Certainly, there are verifiable sources of this company's existence and notability, however, as the guidelines describe, "article content does not determine notability." While the article appears to be well written, the article does seem to raise questions about the notability guidelines that have been set forth. --Dekema2 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no mention at sand mining. However, the article creator added a non-notable mention on Work accident. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the creator of this group of articles could think that "In August 2013, an employee of the Gernatt Family of Companies experienced a work accident in which he received third degree burns when a conveyor belt exploded during start-up and caused a fire at the companies' asphalt plant in Yorkshire, New York" belongs in the general article Work Accidents neatly sums up what's wrong here. There's no sense of proportion or appropriateness at all. Bonus points for the worker "experiencing" an accident. EEng (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction. It was Environmental impact of mining. --Dekema2 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I have to admit this article is very well written, highly referenced, and there seems to be some slight notability but pretty much entirely the coverage is local. It annoys me I couldn't find any notability, as this is a great article otherwise. There is plenty of notability for its owner/founder but not for the company itself. I would recommend merging a reasonable amount of this content into the page Daniel R. Gernatt, SrJTdale Talk 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To further follow-up, it should be plain that Dekema2 has done absolutely nothing to contribute to or improve this article. The only thing Dekema2 has done for this article is to it's detriment, by putting it up for afd. Dekema2 placed a message on my talk page, stating that their only aim at doing the afd is to gain a consensus regarding notability. That is not a reason for placing an article up for deletion, as per the deletion policy. If there is an issue with an article, the article should be fixed. However, there is no issue with the article because notability has been more than established per Wikipedia's guidelines. This is a Class C article, and is worthy of consideration for Class B if the reference structure is improved, which I am no longer willing to do. Those editors who have invested the most time and effort into this article, including me and User:Stesmo appear to observe our work being in vain. After investing 60 hours into this article, I stopped keeping count of my time. For an editor to threaten to tag it for notability, and then, instead tag it afd is obviously drive-by tagging from an editor who has just appeared out of the blue for no other reason than to want the article deleted. It should also be noted that Dekema2 is an inexperienced editor who has been on Wikipedia for all of 3 months. The one article that Dekema2 supposedly created is actually tagged with 3 different problems that have not been fixed. Yet, Dekema2 is supposedly concerned about issues with this article that actually do not exist. What has been plain is the continual politics played against my work on these articles. Again, it should also be plain that Softlavender and especially EEng are biased against this article and other related articles about this family and their companies. Those who stir the pot and encourage other editors to be detrimental to such articles diminish Wikipedia as an organization. As always, it is much easier for people to do an afd than actually contribute to and improve an article. Again, this is a Class C article that has more than met notability requirements, and has no place on this discussion board. Those who bring it down, and who are negative and critical are only a detriment to this project as a whole. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 09:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniellagreen: WP:AGF!! Dekema2 has been nothing but polite to you. [22] This has been going on for too long now and just reflects your inability to function in a collaborative environment. If you continue to attack other editors, I will seek administrative intervention against you per WP:CIR.  NQ  talk 10:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Very well-written"? You must be joking. Exhibit A: "In 2001, the companies were awarded an honorable mention for the design of the company website in the annual Pit & Quarry awards." EEng (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm joking; why else would I suggest a move to userspace? If I was serious, I'd say keep it as is, which obviously isn't going to happen. But in the userspace, Daniellagreen can revise their article before re-publishing it, rather than having the article wholly deleted without any remaining content with which to improve. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The companies are not notable enough to move back to article space; "improving" the article is not going to change that. AfD is not a discussion about how good an article is or whether it needs to be "improved"; it is a discussion about whether the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines for inclusion. This does not. Softlavender (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've look through the sources and it's all routine coverage, passing mentions, trade-journal puff pieces, etc. EEng (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by moving back into article space can also mean that it can be merged into a planned Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr article as a subsection. Epicgenius (talk) 03:33, 31 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaocean[edit]

Mediaocean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence for notability; sources are either mere notices or press releases DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article from Wall Street Journal already included. Notability is firmly established with sources that need to be added to article. Forbes, Advertising Age, Business Insider, Yahoo Finance, some in The Guardian. Coverage of Pandora integration in Billboard Magazine. Also pre 2012 it was called Donovan Data Systems, and there is an article on that company I am going to merge right now, plus more coverage on its pre-2012 business. JTdale Talk 10:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:00, 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.