< 9 September	11 September >

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) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transmisogyny[edit]

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

This topic is covered in Transphobia, no discussion has taken place at Talk:Transphobia and therefore there is no consensus to make this a separate article rather than expand coverage in the existing article. Article was previously a redirect to the existing article. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see also the discussion which resulted in merging Transprejudice into Transphobia, as the arguments are likely to be similar. Yworo (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The transphobia article doesn't cover transmisogyny. It just gives a very short, inadequate definition. That's not coverage. If you call that coverage and grounds for transphobia being the article on transmisogyny, then there are at least 5 other articles that should also be the sole article covering transmisogyny. This is utterly ridiculous. No concensus was ever made that transphobia should be *the* article for transmisogyny instead of transmisogyny. Why do I need to seek consensus to "undo" a supposed "consensus" that never happened in the first place? It's common wikipedia policy to have the article name reflect the article topic. transmisogyny is a significant article and merging it into transphobia would completely derail that page. Alyxr (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back It's a neologism that is a slightly different spin on transphobia and has few relevant references actually using or explaining it. I'm sure there are five or six more synonyms, but does each one get an article? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested and per [[WP:CHEAP)). Bearian (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHEAP is utterly non-applicable. Alyxr (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sure there are five or six more synonyms" there aren't, so your point is moot. Alyxr (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails all four points for merging in WP:MERGE.109.153.191.132 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the suggested merger seems to fail the points as listed above. Additionally, I'd be more than happy to help improve both articles, if that's at all at issue. I think a short section giving an overview of transmisogyny in the transphobia page (but with a link to a full article) would do quite well. Huxley G (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments and there is sufficient reason to think the scholarship will only expand coverage of both concepts. Sadads (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above users. Stamboliyski (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It's also misleading to suggest this article is deleteable because the creator did not seek consensus for the fork. There is no policy requiring this; it's perfectly common for the discussion to take place after the fork has been created. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information in the nomination is incorrect. It is not covered in the other article. It should not be merged as it is its own topic. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 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 Battle Royale. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Hyuga[edit]

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

An actress with just one role. Probably can be just redirected to Battle Royale IMO. Wgolf (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: A single supporting role and nothing to indicate a following of any kind. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Kolbasz (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, not notable independent of Battle Royale; next to no coverage in RSs = not notable. Jinkinson talk to me 00:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jlnkinson Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fictiophilia[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, sourced to a blog and... I don't even know what the second reference is supposed to be. A handful of hits on Google, of which none are reliable sources. Prod removed by article creator. Kolbasz (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's it called? Huh? It happens a lot and this is the official term, the problem is that it's very common then people think it's normal so It not that of a concern. As for the references, I'm not good at HTML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hades173 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hades173 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Kolbasz (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is based on what is, not what we think should be. It's an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say about notable subjects. If this is the "official term" for the concept, then the article needs reliable sources that say so! As far as I can tell, the term was made up by the cited blog (not a reliable source), isn't in widespread use and doesn't show up in the scientific literature at all. Kolbasz (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find reliable sources. The blog cited in the article notes that this is what the author calls fictiophilia: i.e. the term does not exist in other sources. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that this has receive significant coverage in reliable sources. It looks like this might have caught on at Urban Dictionary and a few blogs, but that's about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually considering CSD'ing this when I saw it come across my NPP feed, however, I got sidetracked. For all I can tell this is either original research or a hoax - either way, it's not notable or sourced. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone above has said it as well or better than I could.I am One of Many (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nek Muhammad Shaikh[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Apparently non-notable associate professor per WP:PROF. His papers don't appear to have many citations on Google Scholar, and he doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMICS. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) this page about the Professor and its reference also available. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by AloneMac (talk • contribs) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom, plus being a vanity article that fails even WP:GNG by being sourced only to the school website and a press release from the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan, with no coverage at all in independent sources. Thomas.W ^talk 20:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are officially from the school website and a press release from the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan. AloneMac User talk:AloneMac 21:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is scholar and professor of University of Sindh and a notable person of Sindh province of Pakistan. Azam_Gul 21:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability or of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. Being a scholar and professor, having publications, getting grants, and making research presentations (the accomplishments listed in the article) are part of the stuff all professors do; they are not per se evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David - and remember that notability isn't temporary. Should he eventually pass WP:PROFESSOR we can always re-create. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:16, 17 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (t) Josve05a (c) 17:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Grosz[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. Unable to find any significant references other than the published books. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article has been significantly improved and notability established. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have JSTOR access, and there are 1,548 hits there for "Elizabeth Grosz". On Google Books there are many hits apart from her own numerous books: e.g. [1]. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has half-a-dozen mentions, e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-body/. She is a well-known feminist philosopher. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5: she has a named chair at Duke, which I just added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per both of the above. Widely cited and influential, plus presumed notability for the named chair. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 08:20, 11 September 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 deleted G4. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Duljević[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 still applies here, but the tag has gone unaddressed since my conversation with CactusWriter (talk · contribs) about it a week ago. That being said, the article still fails WP:NSPORT as Mr. Duljević has not played in a fully pro league, and still fails WP:GNG as he has not received significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search did not bring up any sources beyond this article, YouTube videos and a few blog posts.This article does not meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL which requires a "Fully Professional League" --Jersey92 (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question is FK Sarajevo not a fully professional league team? Our article on it seems to indicate that it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: Whether the club is fully pro or not is immaterial. WP:NFOOTBALL requires the entire league to be fully pro. The Bosnian Premier League is not, as confirmed by reliable sources cited at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 11 September 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 appears the the discussion has rejected the offered sources. I did glance through them in case they were strong enough to trump the discussion but this doesn't seem to be the case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Masimov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This afd needs to be redone, as the last one was subject to significant sockpuppetry. A majority of users opposing deletion three months ago have since been blocked for sockpuppetry following this SPI. The basic rationale of the last afd still stands. Joe Deckers closing remarks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarlan Guliyev some up the situation nicely. Without reliable sources confirming the professional status of the Azerbaijan Premier League one way or the other, WP:NSPORT gives a clearly ambiguous result, meaning that notability depends on WP:GNG which this article fails. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence the is Azerbaijan Premier League is fully-professional, and no indication of significant coverage. Giant Snowman 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL which requires a "Fully Professional League" - are there WP:RS that he played in one? If so add them to the article. Otherwise Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable association football player. Fails specific notability guideline per WP:NFOOTBALL (never played a game in a fully professional league), and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). You can also put this vote down as a pile-on anti-sock puppetry !vote, too -- we've seen far too many sock puppets in recent AfDs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:NFOOTBALL players who have played in a fully professional league are notable. Masimov played in Neftchi Baku which is a clup of Azerbaijan professional leage. The list of fully professional leagues in WikiProject Football is not completed (It's mentioned there). Azerbaijani football clubs (including Neftchi) play in UEFA European League (even in group stage), which says that Azerbaijan football league is fully professional. --Interfase (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per WP:FPL, there is no consensus that the Azerbaijan League is fully professional. Competing in european competition in no way means that the league a club originates from is fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added Azerbaijan. Because there are two professional football divisions in Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijan Premier League and the Azerbaijan First Division[2]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG with an unusual amount of Russian and Azerbaijani media coverage [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he is not fully pro, he is not fully pro. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The primary criteria has nothing do do with whether one is fully pro. If one meets WP:GNG why does it matter if they are not fully pro? Though evidence suggests he is fully-pro - just that the league his team plays in, may not be fully pro. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there's no consensus that the league is actually fully professional then he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL and therefore doesn't pass WP:GNG. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to User:Dusti and User:DoctorBob3 - WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't trump WP:GNG. If a player meets WP:GNG it doesn't matter if they don't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or other notability requirements. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played in a fully pro league. JMHamo (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CitySpecialz[edit]

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

Seems like an advertisement for a corporation or business ThoseAreMyShoes (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:51, 10 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyadish[edit]

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

Non-notable font. References are to storefronts that sell the font, which doesn't indicate notability. Article was created by the font creator. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is written like an advertisement and there is no indication that the font is notable enough to be encyclopedic. Snood1205 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - font/typeface article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Inclusion on font download sites is not sufficient. A search turned up no RS coverage of this font.Dialectric (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is the author of the article trying to promote his or her own work? This is not a known font and is not notable. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see lack of many independent sources (with one secondary sources included) a threat to this specific article's integrity, verifiability, or accuracy. As the article subject is also not for sale either, I'm inclined to suggest that we keep it. --Gryllida (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly is for sale (and both those pages are linked from the article). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of secondary coverage indicates notability concerns and a failure to meet WP:GNG. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:36, 19 September 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)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramnagar,Alapur[edit]

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

Unreferenced list of non-notable businesses (with phone numbers). WP:NOTDIRECTORY Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator Given how the article has changed over the past week while I was away, I would support withdrawing the nomination. Most of the unsourced list of schools and hospitals should be removed and the article kept as a stub. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - test page, no context, whatecer. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article about a tehsil or possibly the town that forms the core of the tehsil. All towns and counties are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep towns, villages and land marks are generally kept per WP:NPLACE. And in this case the town/village actually exists. Coordinates were also provided. Ahecht the list are not businesses, they are schools and no phone number or such exists anymore. That means, WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't applies anymore. RHaworth, this article doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria so can you please think again?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 08:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the article from Ramnagar,Alapur to Ramnagar, Alapur. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 08:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember, the article is about an Indian town/village so per WP:IKI sources are not quite available online. If you won't get significant coverage online that doesn;t mean the subject is not notable. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep real place per WP:GEOLAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:INDAFDKI, the evidence of its existence can be gained at here. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 13:53, 15 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Altruism Society[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Only references are to their own website and to the bible. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of being a real organization with the claimed 500 international offices. Observable activity consists of a guy writing vacuous Hallmark feel-good tweets and asking people to give him a million dollars because The Bible says to give stuff. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too was very surprised that there is so little information about an organization with allegedly 500 offices. No press coverage of any of their projects or branch offices? Seems unlikely for a legit organization. So to me, it seems non-notable to say the least, but more likely some sort of scam. ubiquity (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a likely hoax. Guidestar has no listing of any such organization, which indicates they have never filed a single federal non-profit tax return. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Further research indicates that an organization of this name has registered with the Ohio Attorney General's office, but the registration is apparently incomplete and the organization's status is pending. The IRS Exempt Organization office knows nothing of this organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The article creator has responded to this AfD on my talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just as a point of reference, the Alexandria, VA address is in the Cameron Court residential apartment complex[10], and the Beachwood OH address is a Bosley Hair Transplant office[11]. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claims in the article are not backed up by WP:RS and seem to be contradicted by the organization's website. e.g., 500 locations? The website shows less than 10. Seems to fails WP:GNG as well. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is fake. Spumuq (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be a hoax and it certainly is not notable. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:V.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny that the organization's website asserts "COUNTRIES WO (sic) DO WORK IN" are "North America, Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, South America, Phillipines, Carribean Islands", few of which are recognized countries. :) --do ncr am 22:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a hoax. Anyway, fails GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are so many things wrong with this I'm surprised it hasn't already been nuked yet Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doncram's comment made me laugh at this likely hoax. I am One of Many (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Devaney[edit]

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

I am unable to show and establish notability of the subject. Also fails WP:GNG in my opinion. (t) Josve05a (c) 18:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Self promotional puff piece which fails WP:ENT. Theroadislong (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. I should note that this article has been around for five years and it is only Devaney herself who has taken it to its current state.--Laun chba ller 07:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we could !vote based on looks this would get a 100% Keep .... but sadly we don't, Anyway sadly no evidence of notability, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:41, 18 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden cauchi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP; PROD tag removed. —Swpb^talk 17:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC) —Swpb^talk 17:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable youngster. I moved it to Jayden Cauchi which must also be considered. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't even find any evidence that a footballer by this name exists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG WP:RS WP:NFOOTBALL. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a WP:FPL. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails NFOOTY. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP, RS appears to indicate he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY - we can always re-create should he become notable in the future Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qoin[edit]

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

Company is not notable at this time, either from the provided references or a search. There is one passing reference in the Guardian reference and nothing from a reliable, third-party source showing up in a search. Stesmo (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: no element of notability. Its nothing but blatant advert.Wikicology (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's n ot a speedy as blatant advertising, since the article is purely factual, except for the one word "expert" . But it's the factual description of a company which is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 15 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kumar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page appears to be a self-advertisement and certainly falls foul of WP:PEACOCK. It relies on overly on WP:primary sources and WP:COI from the main editors has been suggested in the past. There are multiple maintenance tags which no one seems keen on addressing. In short, it’s someone’s CV and it really shouldn’t be here. Project Osprey (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom says, this appears to be solely primary source/original research, a list of publications is not a source of notability unless others report that these publications are notable themselves by their ground-breaking nature or similar high impact in some field, or some other aspect of them that together makes it an accomplishment. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Everyone reports their scientific works as groundbreaking, first to accomplish, highly novel, etc...that's just WP:PEACOCK self-promotion designed to get published (if it weren't somehow new or different, it wouldn't get published in primary-research journals). DMacks (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be the merciful thing to do. Its painful to read and probbaly painful for the subject. Some of these articles got started when the mission and style of Wikipedia was less clear. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's rather well-cited. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he has nice and high impact papers these are well supported by ref. He should stay at wiki as good work he is performing I have seen that an anticancer work published yesterday in top reputed ACS journal Journal of medicinal chemistry

J. Med. Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/jm500873e • Publication Date (Web): 08 Sep 2014.remove these tags.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Peterruby (talk • contribs) 05:39, 12 September 2014

— ‎Peterruby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The subject of the article has been ref-spammed into various other articles by numerous SPAs going back at least 5 years, including refs that are sometimes incorrect and/or fluff/proportionally-worded primary research (see my original comment) when added. DMacks (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This appears to be a high-citation field; e.g. even the highly specialized topic of synthesis of polyhydroquinoline derivatives using a Hantzsch reaction (his 1st and 3rd-cited papers) has citation counts 234, 170, 137, 115, 88, 74, ... in Google scholar (searching keywords polyhydroquinaline and hantzsch; the 170 and 74 are the subject's, and are neither the first nor the most highly cited on this topic). Additional evidence that this is a minor and specialized subtopic is that we don't even have an article on polyhydroquinaline. So although the most likely avenue of notability is through WP:PROF#C1, I think the case there is not strong enough to carry the day in the absence of anything else. Certainly the claims in the article of "significant contributions" to wide areas of biology and chemistry appear overblown. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Khan (martial artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable martial arts teacher. The article is referenced only be primary references (self entered dojo listing) and is autobiographical. The article was cleaned up to bring it more in line with MOS.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 22:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An apparent autobiography with the only sources being self postings--no independent coverage. Also nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:MANOTE. The lack of any secondary sources and the fact that it's an autobiography make this easy.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doowee Donut[edit]

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

Completely unremarkable product. Contested PROD, no reason given, so no other option to pursue than AfD. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources, only a fan page on Facebook and anectdotal mentions of the product in blogs. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG --RioHondo (talk) 03:10, 11 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Pacella[edit]

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

Seems to be autobiographical, an article about a well-regarded plastic surgeon. However, the notability rests on a local news article in 2011 and some very minor awards (for example the "Top Doc" awards went to 749 recipients in 2013). Well done for providing free services to charity, but the news article also points out he is one of 600 surgeons in San Diego alone to help the charity. Seems to be an excellent surgeon but Wikipedia isn't a listings service for California plastic surgery. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom and above that article fails WP:GNG. Neil916 (Talk) 06:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE, I have added more information to this page. The article is no longer an orphan - it has been linked to several other articles. The article has also been placed in many specific categories. There have also been new references added to support Dr. Pacella's notability. Please advise on how to move forward. Thank you. InnoWikipedia (Talk) 12:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the two references that were added and in my opinion they do not help to establish the notability of the article subject per WP:GNG. The subject should have several non-trivial references from an independent source. A list of publications by the subject doesn't meet that standard, nor does a directory of participants in a project. Neil916 (Talk) 18:02, 17 September 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 close. Bad faith nomination by suspected sockpuppets of known problem. Jayron32 12:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Shōnen Jump[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is not notable, a copyright violation, and a hoax. Silver Mitchell (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously not notable. A hoax as well! --ScarletSaddenedSoldier (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep repeated extremely bad faith nomination by known vandal (see previous AFD). AFD as well as repeated bad faith edits made just hours after page protection was removed. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note Silver Mitchell and ScarletSaddenedSoldier are suspected of being WP:SOCKs of Cow cleaner 5000, whose previously identified sockpuppet account nominated the article using the same rational. —Farix (t | c) 11:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#2. This nomination is unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption. The WP:DUCKTEST also identifies the nominator as a sockpuppet of an identified vandal. —Farix (t | c) 12:02, 10 September 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. Strong consensus to keep Philg88 ^♦talk 06:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton twin towns mural[edit]

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

An article on a mural where the reliable secondary sources consist of one local article ([12]the Sutton Guardian, a localized page of the Guardian)? The only other source I could find, also a local paper[13], is a copy of the press release by the Sutton Press Office[14].

These murals for the moment lack the necessary Notability to have an article here. Fram (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already been cleared for DYK. AfD seems inconsistent. In addition to the three sources already in the article, I've found this interesting feature on Sutton which highlights the mural [15] A P Monblat (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK doesn't check for notability. Wordpress blogs don't count, and the three sources are the repeat of the press release I linked to above, and two times the exact same article (the local Guardian page) under different headings. So that's still one independent but local source. Fram (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep There are sources, albeit local ones. Street art is not heavily reported. Should check back to 1993 when they were created, but these likely are off line. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WP:PERSISTENCE as cited by User:Launchballer. That the town decided it was worth preserving and restoring is both noteworthy and telling. Indeed, they themselves used the word "notable". 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually one source (identical in two publications), and one repeat of a press release. Fram (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PERSISTENCE. Street art very rarely receives any attention at all, and for that many sources to be available on the internet despite its age shows that a lot of coverage existed at the time of its creation.--Laun chba ller 17:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a kind of reverse crystal balling. The "that many sources" (one article in a local paper, and one reprint of the press release in a local advertising paper) show nothing about the coverage in 1993. And that the town decided a mural they had ordered should be preserved isn't that strange, it's not as if it was some graffiti that only got accepted afterwards (let's be clear, Banksy it ain't). PERSISTENCE is especially badly applied here, we only have sources for one event, and that is used a evidence that it should be kept per persistence? !Votes that interpret policy or guidelines so badly should be ignored by the closing admin. Fram (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the work was commended by the Sutton and Cheam Society in 1994 lends weight to the sensible conclusion that there would have been considerable off-line coverage at the time. A P Monblat (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do other things commended by the Sutton and Cheam Society get considerable coverage? If not, your conclusion is entirely without merit. Fram (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did the DYK review and I did wonder whether this would end up at AfD. But I'm generally an inclusionist. As I frame it, is WP a better place for this article existing or does it degrade the purpose of WP? I think the former. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All this mural needs is a mention in Sutton High Street, which it has got already. Otherwise we have a council press release [16] regurgitated to greater or lesser extent by two local freesheets (NB I can't see anything in the two newspaper articles that hasn't come from the council press release, so they give no added value to the press release) plus a "commendation" from a local society (sourced only to the artist's own website). And err that's it. The mural isn't sufficiently notable to merit a stand-alone article, padded out as it is by mentions of other art in Sutton and a mention of somewhere else that has links with Sutton but isn't in the mural. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PERSISTENCE.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You have three sources which at first sight may look like reliable independent sources. They are from 10 June 2011 and 12 June 2011. I don't think that having one repeat and one rewrite of a press release can validly be considered to meet WP:PERSISTENCE. Fram (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Considering that this mural has not (as far as we know) received any artistic attention or awards, how is this different from the following example:
- A street is created in the pre-internet era
- In 2011, the city council announces in a press release that they will renovate the street and add some fancy benches for the elderly to sit on
- This renovation gets reported (copy of the press release or with a slight rewrite) in two local papers (or local sections of papers)
Would this street suddenly become notable and meet "Persistence"? If so, then probably half the streets in the Western world can be considered to be notable... Fram (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this set of murals notable is the combination of WP:PERSISTENCE with the fact that it is an artwork; while the fact that is has in addition received commendation lends further weight to this argument. There are millions of insignificant roads in the world, but only a very limited number of public artworks, and an even more limited number which have received commendation. A P Monblat (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, what Persistence? Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. You have sources from 10 June 2011 and 12 June 2011, that's the opposite of persistence. A mural can not be notable because it is an artwork, that is very circular reasoning. Artworks are not inherently notable. A commendation by a unimportant local organisation again gives no weight, just like non-notable awards give no notability to writers, artists, films, ... And the "very limited number of public artworks" still ranges in the tens of thousands, if not more. Every city is filled with sculptures, mosaics, fountains, ... but only a small set of these are notable. It is not inherently notable, it hasn't received significant awards or non-routine (or even non-local) coverage. Fram (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artworks may not quite be inherently notable, but they are a lot closer to it than the roads example. And public art is somewhat rarer than art in general, while at the same time interacting with ordinary people more in that they see it everyday, and don't have to go to a gallery to view it. Finally, I can't imagine many ordinary Wikipedia readers who see this article (if they are allowed to) being perplexed as to why it is in the encyclopaedia and thinking the worse of WP for including it. A P Monblat (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Why we are even having this discussion during wikipedia's SUMMER OF MONUMENTS is beyond me. The point of wikipedia (opinion) is that so when someone thinks or says, "I wonder what that is?" the answer that works is "Look it uo on wikipedia." Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well said Carptrash 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The fact that "summer of monuments" is going on (apparently, I wouldn't know or care) is a reason to keep an article? Quick, let's start "decade of porn" so we can keep all non notable porn articles! Fram (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not the Mona Lisa but it doesn't have to be. We have enough coverage to support a page and, per WP:NOTPAPER, that's fine. Andrew (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fram, you are alone. Buried under an avalanche of consensus. WP:Snow WP:Dead horse. You have a fine way with irony. Let's not misrepresent the "debate" indeed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You forget User:Bencherlite. I am buried under an avalanche of some of the most ridiculous keep reasons I have ever heard. Keep because it is summer of monuments? Keep because we have persistent coverage from local newspapers reprinting a press release over the course of three days? Just state "while this may not meet WP:N as it stands, I think we need to make an exception here". But this echo chamber of "let's twist policy beyond recognition to get what we want" is not really one of the finest hours in the history of AfD. Fram (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I too was unaware that having a "Summer of Monuments" meant that the general notability guideline had gone out of the window - perhaps I missed that discussion. Nor was I aware that the current test is "would readers think the worse of Wikipedia for including this article?" or words to that effect. The key information is and can continue to be included in Sutton High Street (to which this page could be redirected, I suppose) but one council press release about erecting a new information board (which is then effectively cut-and-pasted by some (very) local newspapers without independent thought or additional information) is hardly the basis for a stand-alone article, because we don't have significant coverage in independent and reliable sources (WP:GNG). The press release isn't significant coverage or from an independent source ("For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent" - WP:GNG again); the very local newspaper reports add nothing to the press release and smack of WP:ROUTINE / run-of-the-mill coverage of a minor local issue; the alleged "commendation" of an unknown nature from a non-notable local group adds nothing and in addition comes only from a non-independent source, and err that's it. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The talk page of this article says that the result of the discussion was "Keep", suggesting that this discussion should now be over. A P Monblat (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An IP editor closed this as "Snow Keep", which I reverted. An AfD with this many questions and with dissenting opinions, even in a clear minority, should not be closed as snow keep, and certainly not by an IP. Fram (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The history shows another editor as having done the revert (with no explanation), so I am still confused. A P Monblat (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The record is what it is. There is a clear WP:consensus, with ~~one~~ two dissenters. The reasons and the dissents are in there. I respectfully suggest that the discussion be closed as Keep and that we all follow the wise counsel of WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting "keep" in bold twice might give the impression, to someone conducting a quick head-count, that you were two different people. Please "unbold" one of them. And I'm confused - who is the "one dissenter" - me, or Fram? Bencherlite ^Talk 19:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy Deletion per G12, unattributed copyvio. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Fushigi no Janjan Land[edit]

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

For two major reasons:

The game is non-notable. Google searches for Super Mario Fushigi no Janjan Land or スーパーマリオ+不思議のジャンジャンランド yield no usable sources.
The article is a copyvio of MarioWiki. I'm no copyright expert but although MarioWiki is licensed under CC-BY-SA, the article does not provide attribution (and has already been nominated for CSD for the same reason).

Therefore it should be deleted. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mainly as copyvio IMHO. Notability is skimpy too, maybe possible to merge into Capcom's line of Medalusion titles should there be an article, but that too is low on notability. Info page on Capcom site Second hand arcade cabinet vendor 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 11:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my CSD nomination and the nominators nomination Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 12:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Professional Boxing Federation[edit]

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

Non-notable boxing organization. Article has no sources and the only link is to the organization's home page. It's telling that very few of its championship slots are filled. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is a link to the organization's web page.Mdtemp (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another boxing organization with vacant titles and no coverage except for a link to its own web page.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Margotta[edit]

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

Looking at the size and detail of this article you'd think that Daniel Margotta is a major actor. A closer look show this is a major promo piece for minor actor. He "starred" in an advertisement. He was uncredited in Carlito's Way. Played parts like Stunt Double, Pool Shooter #1, bouncer alongside Fabio , Drug Dealer, stunt man and Truck Driver. Only significant parts seem to be in non notable films. Shorts I Am Woody, Lily of the Feast, student film The Bronx Balletomane. Closest to a good role in a notable production is in Wannabes but reviews [17] [18] [19] suggests it's not a significant and it's only a single role. Independent coverage in the article is lacking. DX-3 Magazine article is by him. GMN News piece is about someone else. Most others are about films he's appeared in (mainly IMDb links). A search for sources found nothing better. The award are not major, two small local festival awards. Margotta falls short of WP:NACTOR and lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. A lot of name dropping, but not enough actual prominent work yet for inclusion. Fails WP:NACTOR guidelines 1-3 at this time. Neil916 (Talk) 08:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Daniel has several large roles in significant films and has a cult following. All actors start with small supporting roles and gradually get larger roles. Daniel has won several awards, including Best Supporting Actor for a Short Film for his role Cheech in I am Woody. He has been in several high profile, national commercials which have more than a cult following. Daniel's page is accurate and fully fulfills WP:NACTOR guidelines 1-3. He has an illustrious career and the page accurately represents who he is and what he has done.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.24.104 (talk)
Do Not Delete. Daniel has significant role in performing art including short films, commercial advertisements, awarded for his activities in different times. He has the notability to be in the Wikipedia and fulfills WP:NACTOR guidelines 1-3. Rodella dup (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)— Rodella dup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. I can see this as possibly being discussed again in the future given the number of arguments that this individual just barely passes the WP:GNG, and would therefore recommend to the article's contributors that they focus on establishing notability to firm this up. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fran O'Leary[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Has not played/managed a fully pro club nor received significant coverage. Therefore he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG with significant media coverage such as [20]. Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - concur with NFitz that the link above is pretty significant coverage in a reliable national source, but one article for an assistant manager who doesn't appear to have won any NCAA Div I championships is stretching GNG a bit. Would be happy to change the vote if significant non-routine coverage of his college career can be shown. Fenix down (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Also, it's worth noting that O'Leary served as interim head coach of Toronto FC while awaiting Nelsen's arrival. Tchaliburton (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure about that from these sources.

1 is a word for word copy of the interview that Nfitz put forward for GNG, just in a different place.
2 is just WP:ROUTINE coverage of his appointment with a statistical summary of his college career, nothing in depth at all.
3 deals with the man in a bit more detail, could be used to support GNG if there was a fair bit more like this and not just covering his Toronto appointment which at the moment raises WP:BLP1E issues.
4 should be rather from the title this is not about O'Leary, but about Ryan Nelsen and only mentions O'Leary tangentially and in passing.
5 Is 2 sentence summary of an appointment at his previous college, the very definition of WP:ROUTINE.
Regarding the fact that he served as interim head coach, there is no indication that he actually took charge of any competitive games.

Looks to me like there have been about two interviews of any significant length all based around his appointment as an assistant coach. I still think we are a fair way from GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SIGCOV "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Based on this there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a detailed piece about his college career and another about his work with Toronto FC. Tchaliburton (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some of these, and some others (for some reason there are front page articles today in the newspaper). And restored a reference, that I assume User:Tchaliburton deleted in error. Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 1 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 02:27, 2 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 06:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Kingjeff (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingjeff: can you please clarify why do you think this article should be kept?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: He's an assistant coach in a fully professional league. I don't know if there is an official consensus regarding assistant coaches. But there are sources about him. So, I think he meets WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kingjeff. Always add a rationale after you add a !vote. It will help the closing admin/editor to judge properly. For more information see this. Thanks again, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 04:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He has coached at some professional teams, but only as an assistant. With the media coverage he has received, I think he only just scrapes through to pass WP:GNG. IJA (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Tchaliburton and think he marginally passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:10, 18 September 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. G. Rajasekharan[edit]

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

Article of unclear notability. Article fails WP:BASIC Wikicology (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was a popular Malayalam director in Indian movies, during late 1970s and early 1980s, whose movies are popular among Malayalee audience. He made many popular movies with popular actors of 1970s and 1980s in the lead. All his movies includes then famous Malayalam actors, with his debut movie have actor M. G. Soman and actress Jayabharathi in the lead. His other movie have actors like Kamalahasan in Maattuvin Chattangale , Jayan in Anthapuram, Suresh Gopi in Simhadhani, Prem Nazir in Indradhanussu, Thirayum Theeravum, Vaaleduthavan Vaalaal, Chambalkaadu and in Paanchajanyam, Sukumaran in Mynaakam,Chillukottaram, Thozhil Allengil Jail and M. G. Soman in Saahasam,Ival Ee Vazhi Ithu vare, Avan Oru Ahankaari,Beedikkunjamma, Shaari Alla Shaarada, Velluvili , Yakshippaaru and K. P. Ummer in Vijayam Nammude Senaani and so on. The movies which he directed with the popular actor of those time makes his notable enough. (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable article - naveenpf (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's established that he directed a large number of popular Malayalam films, over some time. Lack of easily accessible sources in English is not a reason to delete. —innotata 05:08, 17 September 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 I withdraw my nomination. (non-admin closure) ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 17:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Wilde[edit]

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

non-notable actress per WP:NACTOR ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 17:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_EastEnders_characters_(2013)#Nikki_Spraggan. She's only notable for her role on EastEnders and from what I can see, that seems to be her only role to date. If/when she performs in other roles and gains coverage we can always un-redirect at that point in time. For now the only usable coverage stems from her EE role. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 18 August 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 02:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2013)#Nikki Spraggan per Tokyogirl79 - The only role she's ever had is on EE so seems logical to redirect there, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found/added, I'm not entirely convinced the article hould be kept but since she's also starred in Masterchef and other programmes I'll have to say keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:33, 10 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 02:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of EastEnders characters (2013)#Nikki Spraggan as her only notable role. –anemoneprojectors– 17:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Changing my !vote from redirect to keep. I think there's probably enough significant coverage about her. –anemone projectors– 08:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while agreeing that the previous article was too short, and unreferenced, and deserving of an AfD or a redirect, but there are numerous references such as here and here and here and here and here and here and here which discuss her career, her (infamous) lack of clothing on a National Awards show (such a lame celebrity trick isn't it), her acting on EastEnders, suggesting she well meets notability requirements and meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting a third time per new sources presented in the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Enough significant third party coverage is found to establish notability. Passes WP:NACTOR. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per the sources found by @Tomwsulcer:. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 17:09, 10 September 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. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Country radio top singles 2014[edit]

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

Redundant to List of number-one country singles of 2014 (U.S.) and uses the Mediabase chart which is not used in other articles because no reliable sources exist. Eric444 (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source is a web page that has no indication of reliability, and uses an unexplained methodology. Also, the web site itself states that "Unfortunately, over the last few years, the yearly charts on this site for country have become less and less accurate." --Gccwang (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Eric444 is incorrect as the page uses Billboard which is indeed a very reliable source. For the record, Mediabase is a reliable source as the information comes from program directors at radio stations nationwide. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment List of number-one country singles of 2014 (U.S.) uses Billboard but the article in question, Country radio top singles 2014, uses Mediabase. It says in the introduction "This is a list of the #1 country singles on the Mediabase country chart in 2014" and it is in the nonexistent category "Mediabase charts". Mediabase may be a reliable chart but there is not a reliable archive which is why it is not used in artist discographies or song articles and the only source in the article up for deletion is not a reliable one. Eric444 (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator's rationale. Plus if it uses Billboard as its source, Wikipedia already has lists from Billboard charts and sources those directly. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This list is redundant to the List of number-one country singles of 2014 (U.S.) page which already incorporates the Country Airplay number ones. While the latter page references the Billboard charts, no such reliable archive exists for the Mediabase equivalent that this list seeks to track. Gongshow talk 18:00, 11 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lannel Hamilton[edit]

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

Keeps on getting the prod removed-but a player who has yet to go pro. Wgolf (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played in a WP:FPL. I can't see significant coverage either. Fails NFOOTY. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY - doesn't mean that he won't be notable in the future and the article can always be recreated Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:33, 17 September 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) 06:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Gill[edit]

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

Been tagged for over 4 years now. And am not find a lot about who this is. (Though to be fair Rachel Gill is a common name-yet can't find any people from there with that name) Wgolf (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not establish notability in accordance with it has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.Justice007 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the lack of sources--except for a single dead link--in the article, or the lack of meaningful content in the article, there is no evidence Ms. Gill is notable.-- danntm ^T _C 05:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of hits show that while she may be a model and such, she's not all that remarkable. Unfortunate delete Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:05, 17 September 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. The only keep vote seems to be based on the false presumption that the article about Soknacki himself is to be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Soknacki mayoral campaign, 2014[edit]

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

Content fork for minor mayoral candidate who withdrew six weeks before the election after polling in single digits. Downwoody (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary content fork. Maybe merge a few lines back into David Soknacki but there is no need to cover the campaign of a minor candidate in a mayoral race in this much detail. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm wondering if David Soknacki is notable at all. There's only (very) local coverage and the only national-level coverage simple name-checks him in a story about other people. There's no significant coverage outside of his immediate geographic area. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned when you raised the same concern on the similar article about Karen Stintz's withdrawn campaign, Toronto is in the narrow range of internationally famous metropolitan million-plus megacities for which serving on the city council is taken as an automatic WP:NPOL pass. For most cities, it's true that we don't accept city councillors as inherently notable — but for cities in the Toronto-Los Angeles-New York City-London bracket, we do. So while his article does need improvement, it does meet our inclusion standards — though as with Stintz that doesn't mean his campaign needs to be covered in a spinoff from his BLP. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I don't think that was me, but I take your point. I'm not about to nominate the article for deletion but I'm not really convinced the by "inherent notability of big-city councillors" argument. Anyway, agree with you about the other articles. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A minor mayoral candidate for a minor election. Also, he just withdrew from the race, so the campaign was not a very notable one. Aerospeed (Talk) 02:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A separate spinoff article about an individual candidate's campaign in a municipal election is not the kind of thing we need on Wikipedia — while we've allowed this type of thing for presidential campaigns in the United States, I don't know of any precedent to extend that to municipal offices in any country. Bill de Blasio doesn't have one of these, Rahm Emanuel doesn't have one of these, Eric Garcetti doesn't have one of these, Boris Johnson doesn't have one of these — why would Toronto warrant separate articles about each individual mayoral candidate's individual campaign if New York City and Chicago and Los Angeles and London don't? Any content that's worth keeping should be merged directly into David Soknacki, which is in need of improvement anyway, but this article should be deleted. And that still goes for Olivia Chow mayoral campaign, 2014, Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014 and John Tory mayoral campaign, 2014, too — the fact that their campaigns are still active as of today still doesn't justify covering the campaign in a separate content fork. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual mayoral campaigns do not get their own articles. This is controlled by NP:NPOL.-- danntm ^T _C 05:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the arguments given above and similarly for Karen Stintz. Soknacki's campaign achieved more notability than most of the 67 candidates still running, indicated through his inclusion in the major debates and coverage in major newspapers, however the campaign seemed to fail to score points with voters. His candidacy should be mentioned somehow within the Toronto mayoral election, 2014 article, as he was considered a possible contender by the media and subsequent to his dropping out there have been several writeups on the effect his campaign is expected to have on the outcome of the election. But the campaign is really only notable in the context of the election, and shouldn't have its own page. None of the campaigns really should have separate articles, but that's not the question here. Ivanvector (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Ivanvector stated directly above me "Soknacki's campaign achieved more notability than most of the 67 candidates still running." It meets WP:GNG and makes him a notable candidate. Kingjeff (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's suggesting that we delete the main article about Soknacki himself. But his campaign does not need a separate article from the one on him as an individual — no mayoral candidate in any city on earth, even larger ones than Toronto, has ever qualified for this treatment before, and Toronto's current election is not the place to create a new precedent for this approach. By all means, the relevant content can be added to David Soknacki and/or Toronto mayoral election, 2014 — but we don't need an BLP about him, an overview about the mayoral election as a whole and a third layer of spinoff articles about each individual candidate's individual campaign. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary level of detail for a municipal election campaign. Should be briefly covered in the election article in a "Campaign" section (which is currently missing). Number 5 7 14:47, 16 September 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.