< 15 September	17 September >

The result was DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 22:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

David Balda[edit]

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

I do not know if playing on a national U=youth team is notable, but in any case the article so promotional that it should be started over. I don't usually work in this area but the lede sentence attracted my attention. And then I saw the infobox, with the list of "teams managed"--for not one of which he is actually the manager. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I attempted to clean this article of promotional language last month [1]. I hadn't placed the article on my watch list, so I didn't see that my edits were all undone several days later [2]. The extreme promotional tone is one issue, but I don't think it is relevant since this article's subject doesn't appear notable enough to warrant an article. Deleting it, which I'd recommend, would solve the problem of the promotional language. Schematica (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He has not received significant coverage, and he has not played at a high-enough level to be considered notable. Article is promotional. Giant Snowman 16:04, 17 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) 16:12, 17 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) 13:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:G4? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Balažovič (his real name). Nothing changed since that time. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:48, 20 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Damien Advocates[edit]

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

Pure advocacy on an advocacy group; the response to my tag for POV concerns was to add more quotes from the organization, thus increasing the problem. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organization is not even remotely notable, and the article is pure POV. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization fails WP:ORG, and the Wikipedia page is basically being used as free web hosting for its political opinions. Lagrange 613 12:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems more adverty, requires that wonderful "fundamental rewrite". Most of the references seem to have been duplicated and repeated - and above and beyond I don't see it even coming remotely close to passing WP:GNG Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per above and fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:39, 23 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westophobia[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability of this Neologism/Snowclone. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism that incidentally fails WP:NPOV with regards to the issues said neologism refers to. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article notes, it is a neologism. There is no evidence that it has been adopted beyond Professor Al Mansouri's work. Cnilep (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notabe neologism and original reasearch.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have any of you guys done a Google search? There are a few hits right off: [3], [4], [5], this book, a few mentions in this book, an article about an essay in a book, etc. I'm not saying the current article is worth saving, but the topic seems notable. If we keep it, we can stub it and add the sources. I don't see any English-language sources that indicate who coined the phrase, but it seems to go back to at least the early 1990s based on the New York Times article. Of course, it's a fairly easy word to coin, so I wouldn't be surprised if we find earlier uses. I'm not terribly interested in investigating this further, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was aware of the Jerusalem Post article (and discussed it on the article's talk page), but it uses the term exclusively in quotes, indicating that it is wordplay or a snowclone, not an accepted term. Similarly, the Kashmir times introduces the term in quotes, indicating that this it is not a term that the reader is expected to know. The first two books are by non-notable authors, and the second one uses the term in quotes. The article about the third book reads like a press release, and the book itself seems pretty non-notable given its complete lack of reviews. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 23 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. The consensus here is that this was not vetted for WP:BEFORE and that the concern of notability is not valid. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Hyman[edit]

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

Not notable. 2602:306:CE9A:860:3188:950A:58FA:5B45 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Hyman is the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Thus he meets WP:GNG. Huon (talk) 21:24, 16 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 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject of reliable significant coverage. BTW, this tag-bombing seems a tad pointy; advertisement, primary sources, singles ource, neutral sources – these are not obvious to me and should be more specifically directed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it appears that steps requested prior to sending an article to WP:AFD has not been met here. A quick search for reliable sources regarding the subject of this article (once one drops the middle initial) finds a plethora of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (news, books). Therefore the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Now does this article need to be worked on, sure; however, I don't see a reason that this article can't be worked on and salvaged instead of the possible WP:TNT solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:01, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helarctos malayanus on stamps[edit]

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

A list of postage stamps featuring this creature is not encyclopedic, but an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:INFO) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: under A7 for failure to assert grounds for notability. Ravenswing 04:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Tagged for for A1 and A7. A1 as there's no information meant to identify the subject other than external links Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:59, 23 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Geurtjens[edit]

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

Contested prod, but no reason given. Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:RLN. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I created the page when he was named in the RLWC squad, but as he did not play in any matches at the tournament he does not meet the notability criteria. Mattlore (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:RLN, which sets a very low bar to begin with. More importantly, fails to meet the GNG. There is coverage in one or two very local Queensland newspapers which I can't link here but can be found through google, and mentions in announcements of the Welsh World Cup squad ([6]), but nothing substantial enough. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect: there might be redirect options such as Wales national rugby league team.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mkativerata (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would be notable if he had gotten a game with Wales, but he didn't. He doesn't even appear to be a core players for Norths, only playing nine games for them this season. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 20 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. postdlf (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

This was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies as listcruft and for BLP reasons. It has now been recreated in what is claimed to be a better-sourced version. It was then speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. A discussion about this at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 8 was inconclusive. I'm therefore referring the article to AfD to determine whether it should still be deleted. This is a procedural nomination, I'm neutral. Sandstein 20:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as I said in the first AFD there were no controversies of note and this re-created 'better' version does not change my opinion. I'd advise SALTing to prevent any further re-creations. Giant Snowman 06:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: No controversies of note? I. Don't. Think. So. Perhaps you might want to read said article again. Asoccer maniac (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: The claim was made above that no controversies of note exist. However the article has provided ample references to the contrary. Moreover, the president of FIFA, in the midst of said outcry, had to come out to reassure the world of the integrity of the competition. This is does not strike me as insignificant or unnotable. Asoccer maniac (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first AFD deleted for reasons other than poor sourcing. The appeal to DRV that the sourcing of this second iteration is improved is therefore an invalid reason for restoring and my speedy delete should stand. SpinningSpark 08:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: So exactly what was it deleted for? BLP, or something else? Asoccer maniac (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: The reason for the first AfD still has not been given (as far as I am aware). Asoccer maniac (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I am also nominating the similar List of 1998 FIFA World Cup controversies. SpinningSpark 08:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There have been no significant changes from the original. It fails WP:GNG and is a case of WP:LISTCRUFT. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Why is this a LISTCRUFT and not notable when most of the other articles in its class are not? WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST? Asoccer maniac (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Re: Will not discuss significance now. Instead, simply want point out that many of the other articles in this category would also fall down on the above criticisms. I think the prospective deletion debates would be far more difficult than the present one if they were each motioned for deletion based on the weight of just this (yes, this leaves me open to WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but what the hell. I suspect it would not be of (much) use in such debates). Asoccer maniac (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: Re: I'm back to comment about the matter of "differences of significance". This depends a lot on what counts as "significance" or how it is described. In some sense there is little difference; the article is still skeletally the same - qualitatively. Quantitatively, however, there is a world of difference between the present revision (11,516 bytes) and 16 July deleted version (4,677 bytes). Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wish to note that so far all of the above (me and the nominator excluded) were involved in the original deletion discussion, and have repeated their recommendations despite the revision. While they all have right to not change their minds I will be engaging said users and asking them to clarify their reasoning, and quite possibly providing arguments or evidence to highlight any flaws I see. It may not be enough to save the article(s) or shift consensus, but it will at least show any irrelevant policies, bad arguments or incorrect/misleading information were not unchallenged. Asoccer maniac (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that these "controversies" are minor for the most. this is a classic example of WP:SYNTH, drawing together a number of disparate sources to create an article when there is actually little in the way of reliable coverage discussing the notion of 2002 WC controversies as a subject in itself. also leads to inherent WP:OR issues concerning what is / isn't a controversy. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points. Although, however, a few things to remember. This article is a "list". First of all this makes it unlikely to be found as an exact phrase. Second, many of the matches and incidents described herein are notable in their own right, in the same way people remember for example, the hand of God, and the ghost goal in 66. These are seldom lumped together with other incidents of the same tournament. These are often talked about in general controversies about world cups and/or referees. Also, (as experience from disambiguation and other naming conventions for articles suggest) somethings are "important" but lack a clearly defined name, which the article authors and editors must decide. However despite the above, google searches (unquoted) for List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies and 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies give about 153,000 results and 235,000 results respectively. Cheerio. Asoccer maniac (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having read the article, it looks to me like it can be basically summed up as "Many people thought the referreeing wasn't very good. Here are some examples of poor referreeing..." (Yes, there's the "other" section, but that seems more like a fig leaf to justify how the article isn't just about referreeing when it essentially is.) You could probably create a similar article for many high level sporting events, and not just in soccer either, (I feel pretty sure we could make some decently-sourced articles of this sort on some of the MLB playoffs if we wanted to) but I don't think we really need to create separate articles to document all the bad officiating calls. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage anyone to who wanted to write about MLB controversies (or such like) do so, so long as their article is well referenced and complies with (as much as possible/reasonable) WP policies, but I take the hint that the above user does not agree. As for the other point, most controversies in major football (soccer) competitions like the WC and Euro tend to involve referee (performances) and (player) discipline - just look at the other articles in its category. Note that from now I will not write about anybody directly till the end of this (current) debate. Asoccer maniac (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge just the first paragraph into the main article on the tournament, get rid of everything else. There does seem to have been some controversy over the standard of refereeing in the tournament, but this can be covered by a single paragraph in the main article, there is no need to detail every single incident -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 21 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. The consensus is that it now passes GNG - further, the article has been significantly updated since the nomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas E. Richards[edit]

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

No indication of notability; lots of writers but no indication of notable prizes or coverage in 3rd party secondary sources, etc. WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the author's novel Wired is a New York Times Best Seller and the author has been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources, including [7], [8], etc. I am a bit taken aback by the apparent lack of WP:BEFORE by the nominator and that no effort was put into tagging or improving the article before taking it straight to AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked 13th for 1 week on a best seller list (not the NY Times' famous widely publicized one, you understand - a secondary one) does not make the book notable, nor would the notability of a book be inherited by an author. Moreover, two interviews on talk shows is not in-depth coverage that makes one notable, either. It may be a closer call than some, so it's at AFD, not PROD or speedy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list that the Times puts at the top of their list-of-lists; it's the one that combines sales in hardcover, softcover, and electronic editions. Up against only e-books, Wired was ranked #9 for the week. - Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three Interviews seems to me to indicate notability. (I wrote the stub.) This is probably the wrong place to make the following comment, but here goes. I think some-one who has written several novels that sell well is more notable than episodes of television shows, that are covered extensively in Wikipedia, and at least on a par with an article on a murdered individual otherwise on no note (such as is on the front page of Wikipedia today.Kdammers (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek), demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart. Many of them have the same failures of WP:BEFORE as this one. Ravenswing 04:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are sufficient to establish notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:15, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cars used by John Dillinger[edit]

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

Apparent content fork or split, but having a list of cars owned or used or stolen by even someone as famous as John Dillinger is probably not encyclopedic, any more than would be a list of cars used by Richard Petty or Henry Ford or John DeLorean, etc. Seems trivial, but let the community speak. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put it here but can't argue that it's encyclopaedic or should stay, but I'd like it to stay a little while. I'm trying to get the main article under control and would like to build some consensus on how to proceed or risk having all this stuff re-added to the main article. Aldaden (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. The car Bonnie and Clyde were driving when they were killed is worth a mention, but none of Dillinger's rides had a significant impact or were strongly connected to him. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not contagious. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a very difficult time understanding how this could be notable. Although it has a few vague sources, the topic itself seems almost like a very definition of WP:IINFO. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 22 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) 08:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Trevino Luque[edit]

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

NN footballer. Hasn't played in a fully professional league. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This confirms that he has played in Liga MX, a fully pro league, meaning the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sir Sputnik, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 06:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played in a Fully professional league therefore he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Liga MX is not listed as a fully professional league at WP:FOOTY (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Carlossuarez46 - Liga MX is the new name for the the Primera División de México aka the top tier of the Mexican football pyramid. I urge you to withdraw your nomination for deletion and I'll update Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. IJA (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played in Liga MX a fully professional league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:36, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besnik Ajdini[edit]

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

NN amateur football/soccer player. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Not notable player. Wgolf (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:52, 17 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) 09:01, 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 keep. After doing some in depth research, it's clear that the article had contained incorrect information of which I give a huge kudo's to @Redtigerxyz: to finding. I was also able to do a google image search and came up with some distinction between the two. No prejudice against speedy renomination if you disagree. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanni[edit]

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

Appears to be duplication of Chippiparai - both even read "The Kanni alias Chippiparai". At least the Chippiparai article does have one reference. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep A user vandalised the article by copy paste of the Chippiparai. [9] regards them as distinct breeds. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:32, 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 Clear case of NN band and self-promotion. SPEEDY DELETED. Alexf^(talk) 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Grounds the Band[edit]

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

NN band's self-promo piece. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 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.

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 per A9, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RAID LP[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM JMHamo (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Rathi[edit]

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

Several issues one of which is notability. The lists of awards are unreferenced and in a few cases impossible - 2012 Commonwealth games. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article stands I would vote to delete it. It lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG and there's no supporting evidence to show she's a notable athlete or martial artist. I will give the author a chance to source the claims before I vote.Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FILA results show she won a bronze in 2008 (have added source to claim in article) at the Asian championships but not in 2011. This is another claim about something that didn't happen (gold in the non-existent 2012 Commonwealth games) and makes me question all of the claims. The article isn't helped by having an SPA as its creator and sole contributor.Mdtemp (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least two examples of clear impossibility (falsehood?) made me question everything. The article appears much better now but I would still like to see the claims referenced. FILA Asia bronze goes a long way to establishing notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous references (added to article) suggest she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets the general notability guidelines. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that between the coverage listed and her awards (which wouldn't be enough on their own), this article should be kept.Mdtemp (talk) 19:28, 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appiah Bismark[edit]

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

Had this as a prod but they put up some unreliable sources, has yet to go pro though. Wgolf (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 06:50, 17 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) 09:01, 17 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.

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 (G6) by NawlinWiki.(non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dongwoo (singer)[edit]

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

A singer who is part of a band who has not been doing it that long-could be redirected tot hat band page. (I had a prod but a unlogged in user deleted that) From what I can tell no notability. Wgolf (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go figure right as I post this someone puts a ref up. Still not sure if this guy deserves his own page though. Wgolf (talk) 15:35, 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.

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

The result was keep. The article has been substantially updated - enough so that I believe it has satisfied the nom's concerns and reasoning for deletion. As well the one delete !vote has been changed. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open Justice[edit]

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

Clearly intended to promote the Oxford initiative rather than be an encyclopaedia article about open justice, extent of quotes is beyond what is considered fair use Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as promo. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The large quote from R v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner is public domain in the United States under the edict of government rule and would in any event be compatibly licensed under the OGL. James500 (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Open justice" produces 53 pages of results in GBooks. The article isn't so overtly promotional that it should be deleted, and not rewritten, on that grounds alone. James500 (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we don't delete it, I'm not sure what we'd have left after editing it. The stuff before the quote is all unsourced, the quote doesn't mention the term "open justice", the invocation of the Oxford effort appears to misunderstand what that effort is, and what follows that is definitions, so we're running into WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I don't think this is here to promo Oxford, I think it is here to promo "open justice". --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of reliable sources say that ex parte Kaim Todner is about "open justice": Emerson, Human Rights and Criminal Justice, at para 9-72; Clayton and Tomlinson, Fair Trial Rights, 2nd Ed, at p 62. James500 (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the first five paragraphs do not cite any sources is not a reason to delete the article unless thorough attempts to verify that material have failed. If one wanted to find sources for the third and fourth paragraphs, the logical thing to do is to run searches like "open justice"+secret. And one does find references to secret courts, trials, judgements and evidence. James500 (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't evaluate the notability of a topic or the verifiability of any assertion just by looking at a Wikipedia article, because notability and verifiability are not determined by anything in Wikipedia. They are determined by the existence or non-existence of external sources. James500 (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second and fifth paragraphs might to some extent be supported by this and other sources that come up in a search for "open justice"+transcript. James500 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the results in GBooks, I have no doubt that open justice satisfies GNG. There are entire chapters of books devoted to it such as: [10] [11] [12]. James500 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a mess. However, the underlying concept of open access to judicial proceeding and transparency in judicial decision making is quite notable.-- danntm ^T _C 00:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with reasoning as put forth by Danntm (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Danntm and Cirt, but hopefully article improved as per WP:HEYMANN, notable topic with much coverage; don't know whether should be spelled Open Justice or Open justice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There used to be a juggler who juggled an ax, and would explain that what he was juggling was George Washington's ax, that over the years they had just replaced the handle. And the blade. I feel we're facing something similar here; we have an article where the content is bad and the title is wrong, but if we just replace those two things... well, we could have any article we pleased, if we just replaced those two things. Admittedly, the expected title change in this case is small (if we're talking about the idea of open justice as opposed to some specific Open Justice campaign). I am certainly willing to apply the WP:HEYMANN standard - it could be a stub, it would just have to be a well-sourced stub - but short of that, I'm looking at a good candidate for WP:TNT. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move: posted the above before seeing that Thomesulcer had already put in quite fine work in Heymanning it; it is now a viable article, and should be moved under the appropriate title of Open justice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The article is now at Open justice. James500 (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Problems fixed. James500 (talk) 02:42, 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 redirect to Rovio. Black Kite (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selfie Slam[edit]

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

New, not yet notable (if ever), only sources seem to be blogs. Inclusion is more spam than encyclopedia article. Dennis 13:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dennis I've accepted this article. Would you read the one do not delete just read: http://www.rovio.com/en/news/blog/540/selfie-slam-out-now-in-finland-sweden-and-canada i've found it. Please accept the nomination? MandatoryTeaser (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dennis. Userfy for 30 days since it seems that there may be sources coming in that might establish notability since this stub was created as WP:CRYSTAL. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 13:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The one reference doesn't support the statement which it is being used to reference (the release was ~~today~~ yesterday, not early 2014), and it is a link to the developers' own website. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete Found this website User:David Biddulph: http://selfieslamgame.com and i know that can i accept this nomination please! :( MandatoryTeaser (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this official website at: http://selfieslamgame.com it appears might be confirmed. MandatoryTeaser (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, however, this is an official site, and thus a primary source; it does not help to establish notability, which requires coverage in independent, reliable sources. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game just soft launched yesterday, so video game articles are coming out today that prove it is notable, such as Selfie Slam News.Frmorrison (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue against that being an independent and reliable source fit for demonstrating notability, and instead being little more than a fancy blog that publishes anything for page hits. Dennis 14:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~, at least wait a few days - Released less than 24 hours ago, SIGCOV in reliable sources is trickling in:

[13] from Computer and Video Games (reliable per WP:VG/S)
[14] from Pocket Gamer (reliable per WP:VG/S)
[15] from TouchTapPlay (never discussed at WP:VG/S)

I'm sure there'll continue being more. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After giving it some time, I agree with Czar and propose a Merge into Rovio Entertainment#Rovio LVL11 - add a few words about the game, with the sources found here, and redirect this title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rovio's article as cheap search term. Nearly a week later and the only two reliable sources (per a WP:VG/RS search) are the ones Salv pointed out. I originally advocated for userfying it on the article's talk page, but I'm thinking now that it's better covered on Rovio's and it can always spin out summary style. czar ♔ 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rovio per Czar; the RS refs are fairly thin, with only a few sentences actually about the game. A few are more about the company than the game, despite their titles, so a redirect makes sense until more substantial sourcing appears.Dialectric (talk) 12:26, 23 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 WP:CSD#G4 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azhar Sabri. JohnCD (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Sabri.[edit]

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

Putting a period on the end of the subject's name is nothing but an attempt to get around the ban on creating the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azhar_Sabri which has already been deleted three times and has been banned from being recreated. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the article, and there are just about the same problems with it as with the previous incarnations: it is solely referenced to the author's works themselves, and to trivial coverage like blog entries. Some of the references don't work at all; this reference from the article could be useful as it's a newspaper (though the coverage is a bit trivial as well), but I don't think it's about the same person (see Google Translate). The claim that he is a recipient of various awards is not sourced at all. Speedy delete as a re-creation of Azhar Sabri. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:00, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative responsibility[edit]

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

Article covers the same subject as contributory negligence. As an example of this, the only reference (Daly v. General Motors Corp) is related to contributory negligence, and does not mention "comparative responsibility" 1292simon (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn - no point dragging this out! Apologies that I did not pick up on the difference between the two concepts. 1292simon (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that comparative responsibility and contributory negligence are distinct competing doctrines, as suggested by the literature. See Richard Mann, ‎Barry Roberts, Smith and Roberson's Business Law (2008), p. 471: "The harshness of the contributory negligence doctrine has caused all but a few States to substitute the doctrine of comparative negligence". (Emphasis added). Obviously if they are the same thing, then it wouldn't make sense for a state to substitute the second as a repudiation of the first. bd2412 T 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Firstly, whatever "comparative responsibility" is, it clearly satisfies GNG. Secondly, this AfD should probably be closed as "speedy keep" on grounds that the nominator appears to be proposing a merger instead of a deletion. James500 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per criteria 1 of WP:SK. Nomination withdrawn. James500 (talk) 02:48, 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 and salt per WP:CSD#G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Ali Lighari[edit]

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

Obviously a pretty bright young man but is he actually notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is no rule in Wikipedia regarding age, the only thing is notability. He is notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 37.143.14.157 (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* I can see no evidence that he satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --David Biddulph (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. @37.143.14.157: By 'age', I think RHaworth was referring to one of the most basic argument that prevails around AfD, it goes like "subject is young, a lot more to come". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh dear, apparently I cannot say anything without people attempting to see meaning in it. My "bright young man" remark was meant simply to help the reader visualise the subject of the article. It was not meant as an argument for deletion or retention. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. This is the 4th time a SPA has created an article on this individual (earlier deletes are Asif Laghari, Asif Ali Laghari, and Laghari, Asif Ali). As you can see, the name changes a little each time to evade detection, but their respective texts indicate that the articles are on the same person. Needless to say that notability is not satisfied. This case has now reached the level of being an outright nuisance. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 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 Keep - Seems BEFORE wasn't followed....again. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttlecock (film)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability Kevin McE (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep If this mass nominating of notable articles continues Kevin believe me I'll be opening an investigation. You don't even try to look for sources. Tons of them. As for "no assertion of notability", do you honestly expect every article to say "I am a notable film because...".♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are suggested criteria for judging notability of a film:

   The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
   The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
       Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
       The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2]
       The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
       The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
   The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3]
   The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4]
   The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

If the article makes no reference to any of these, then there is no apparent reason for it to have a place in an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kevin McE, but these "attributes" described in WP:NF are not mandates of the guideline, but are offered simply as examples of possible attributes to consider in looking for sources. Their existence or lack are not notability criteria. Go read WP:OEN. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've misread WP:NFILM. Those are additional criteria. The opening line for NFILM states "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow." So WP:GNG applies first. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And (guess what I'm going to ask) have you searched for and examined sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A film starring Alan Bates would easily pass WP:GNG. Probably worth reading WP:BEFORE too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article don't have to "assert" their notability. MarnetteD|Talk 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a poor, poor nomination. Five seconds and I found this major NY Times article. [16] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple sources being available that show notability even if not currently used in the article. I would urge the nominator to understand what both WP:NRVE and WP:BEFORE mean to this community. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep-Enough info is there. Wgolf (talk) 20:23, 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.

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. Closed early as as noted below the nominator hasn't even bothered following WP:BEFORE, plus the mass nomination of articles doesn't really help here, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O Trem da Morte[edit]

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

No assertion of notability Kevin McE (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm growing tired of your nominations. Why don't you try to expand them yourself? Frankly I'm tired of wikipedia at the moment and the laziness of certain editors who can't be bothered to collaborate. Considering it is a silent film from Brazil, there is coverage in several books here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have grounds for keep? Why would anyone expand an article with no reason offered to believe that there is anything to be found? What good reason is there for starting an article without suggesting that it is worthwhile as the subject of an article? Kevin McE (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The onus is on the nominator to show the article has no potential. Kevin McE failed to undertake the minimum Google Books check that is expected before submitting to AfD on notability grounds. As Blofeld has pointed out, there are plenty of books that discuss the film, which is clearly notable. The check would have taken no more than a minute, less time than creating this nomination, and would have avoided wasting editors time. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have evidently failed to read the nomination. I passed no opinion on notability. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for reasons cited above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the onus. If an article falls foul of speedy deletion criteria, it is grounds for deletion. If someone wants an srticle to exist, they need to ensure it meets WP:A7, Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin McE: You need to read WP:A7 again. No mention of films. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invalid delete rationale. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 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.

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hundred Parishes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The Hundred Parishes is a recently invented project, this Wikipedia article is written by the secretary of the newly formed Hundred Parishes Society, who freely admits "the area as a whole has no formal recognition or status". As such this article is a lengthy essay about a whole number of parishes and geographical features in South East England that have no official connection. The previous AfD seems to have been only a procedural 'Keep'. As far as I can see, though there are obviously very many sources about the villages and attractions in Hertfordshire and Essex, there are almost none about The Hundred Parishes, an invented area. Sionk (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The age of something isn't an indicator of its notability, which was established in the previous AfD. Why are we doing this again? Dwpaul ^Talk 12:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't being nominated because of age, it's being nominated because The Hundred Parishes is not a notable subject, lacking any reliable secondary coverage (apart from the local news article about the formation of the related Society). According to the Safron Walden Historical Society newsletter used in the article, it is a "vision" by a local historian to promote the area (he also authored the Wiki article). Sionk (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, partly on the basis I did not notice it had already been AfD's when I nominated the article. I would have !voted "Delete" in the previous AfD if I'd had a chance, but if a number of editors think a local news article and a couple of historical society newsletters are sufficient to establish notability, then so be it. I don't want to be accused of wasting time and going over the same arguments. Sionk (talk) 14:59, 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.

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. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence (FFACE)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article. Previous deletion discussion was dominated by sockpuppets and apparently affiliated editors - including the recreator. Speedy notice removed by an ISP. This page was supposed to have been salted against recreation as per previous deletion discussion. Mabalu (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Whilst this has been recreated, it has been recreated with information and reference more appropriate. The deletion tag is absolutely baseless. The notable references include news reviews from IMDB, Washington Bangla Radio, Tollywood Dhamaka, Times of India, Telegraph amongst many others. Admins are requested to review all the references individually in the article to verify its notability. Admins are also requested to search google with the names "FAME FASHION AND CREATIVE EXCELLENCE", "FFACE Calendar", and "FFACE" to see more references on Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence before considering deleting this article. If there are other reasons apart from the ones stated, please specify so that I may arrange the same to be modified or removed/added. Thanks! awesomeme111 18:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs)

Right, let's see. Essentially everything seems to be promotion for a calendar that was only launched this year. Gomolo describes itself as an IMDB - and IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Many of the "articles" appear to be press-releases or blog posts which do not show editorial input or third party commentary. There is really very little about this venture that currently shows evidence of ongoing notability. It doesn't help that the "Business Standard" article is so badly translated into English as to barely make sense. It does appear that this article is written solely to promote FFACE, and even the articles I'm seeing online are essentially babbling celeb-gossipy stuff or stuff that reads like press releases/advertising/promotion. Sorry, but I'm not convinced that this article is anythng more than "mere spam pushed by advocates," to quote Bearian on the last AFD. Mabalu (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I looked again online, just to keep myself honest, and found, only 24 Ghits, none of which matter. What I mean is, once you take away the PR, social media, and Indian websites, I could not find a single reliable source about the subject. I did additional searches in the Tollywood media, and I didn't find much there, either. This appears to be a fairly new company that has published a couple of model calendars. I don't see how that could be anything more than run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the brand is based out of India, it is bound to have more of Non- English sources. Non – English sources are also verifiable. Wiki articles should be based on reliable, published sources. I do not understand as quoted by Bearian why would you take away the Indian websites as reliable sources when the brand is based out of India and its bound to have more published articles on Indian mainstream newspapers, magazines, journals and blogs. Obviously personal or group blogs are not reliable sources and none of such are quoted in this article. In response to Mabalu few of the articles do have third party commentary especially the "Business Standard" article has commentary by Bengal’s most successful film director, Raj Chakraborty. There is a huge article on Washington Bangla Radio on FFACE. Ref no 5 on the main article. There is enough notability and reliable third-party sources found on the brand to have a Wikipedia article on this. Ofcourse, there is a difference between press-releases and articles on mainline newspapers. The references provided here are from mainline newspapers published in Kolkata in editorial and not advertisements. There are more articles from “Bengali” mainliners which are not included to minimize Non – English sources. If you want me to add those, happy to do that. awesomeme111 12:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper where it appears to be an promotional and advertisement to me. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia is not a newspaper is just an essay. Essays contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I have provided my support as to why this should be considered as a Wiki article above. Please let me know if you disagree. Please refer to the below news editorials on the brand in online journals, mainline newspapers, online fashion magazine and blogs.

1) Business Standard 2) Washington Bangla Radio Internet Report 1 3) Bengali Film online fashion magazine - Gomolo 4) The Calcutta Times - Times of India 5) Ebela News Coverage (Ebela is the sister Concern of the Telegraph) 6) Washington Bangla Coverage 2 7) Tollywood Dhamaka Report 8) IMDB Event Review 9) Hyderabad Deccan English Daily 10) Candid Communication reports — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more in regional languages which I can include as references if needed. awesomeme111 19:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs)

I'll grant you that the Times of India cite is good. The others, meh. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 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 no consensus. I don't see any point in keeping this discussion open any longer. What we basically have here is a contested PROD with a well based and factual oppose to deletion. No prejudice towards speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of League of Legends champions[edit]

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

While League of Legends is indeed popular, there is next to no indication of the character significance outside of the actual video game. This page just gives unsatisfactory blurbs about all the characters from this single game, without references, without significance provided and without proper expansion. It was for specifically this reason that List of Dota 2 Heroes was deleted. If the significance of any of the content on this page outside of the game is made apparent, I may reconsider my positioning. Until then, I can't see a good reason why this page should remain. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out this same article's successful deletion in September of 2010. Like now, it was filled with fancruft and had little encyclopedic substance. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:16, 2 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) • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no official opinion, but I'd be surprised if some of them weren't covered in third-party coverage of LoL expansions. I remember hearing some buzz about Teemo getting nerfed. It generally doesn't take a whole lot to justify a character list. Tezero (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike almost all character list articles that come to AfD, a WP:VG/RS search spot check of characters from this list actually gets results. There may not be long entries on each character, but there is sufficient out-of-universe coverage of League characters to warrant a small blurb on each. For what the other-stuff-exists argument was worth, the Dota 2 heroes list does not receive nearly the same depth of coverage in a spot check. The League characters have character spotlights from independent sources and articles about new characters while the Dota characters largely have no coverage at all. Perhaps this will change in time, but I don't think that parity between the two games is a reason in itself for taking it to AfD since each article's scope needs to be judged on its own merits. czar ♔ 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are third-party sources to create an adequate list, that would be nice. But, this page really has only used first-party sources and even then, has done so sparingly. I am looking at this not as a comparison to Dota, but as its own article and as it stands, this page really doesn't have information presented that indicates its characters are of significance. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 18:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know next to nothing about League, but here are articles I'd consider sigcov for several of a random sampling of characters:

Shyvana: [17][18]

Draven: [19][20][21][22][23]

Syndra: [24][25][26][27][28][29]

See what I mean? There's plenty to justify this list article, which I much prefer to see grow with sources summary style before individual, under-sourced character articles are made. czar ♔ 18:58, 6 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, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:32, 9 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, NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:27, 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.

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earp: Saints For Sinners[edit]

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

Film that never went into production. There are stories on Google for the director being "attached to direct" circa June 2010, but nothing more. And there's a small matter of the copyvio plot... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Precisely why we have WP:NFF. Betty Logan (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for future films. Clearly a project that never got off the ground or even got any press after the initial announcement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lugnuts, Betty Logan and Erik have said it all. MarnetteD|Talk 18:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Hilariously, this film is still considered "in development" and, considering the topic, it might yet be made. As topic of his plans is sourcable, it could be mentioned and sourced within the Sam Raimi article as a work he considered, but as presented not in one of its own. We must bear guideline in mind though, that if greatly improved and sourced it might merit an article for the notability of not being made per WP:NFF (paragraph 3): "films which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MichaelQSchmidt and fails WP:NFF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:55, 23 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 18:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walterlan Papetti[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Having photos published is not inherently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. Emilysantoss (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)— Emilysantoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep : Notable . User:GWEN ROBBANA (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)— GWEN ROBBANA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — GWEN ROBBANA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep : Makes specific references to notable and usable information. Servergurus (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)— Servergurus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep:The subject seems quite notable as per the media coverage seen in the following references.<ref>((cite web|url=https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/94941089@N03/|title=Celebrities clicked by Walterlan Papetti))</ref><ref>((cite web|url=http://www.walterlanpapetti.co.uk/press.php|title=Press Releases on Official Website)) </ref>((reflist))Cutemaryjane (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)— Cutemaryjane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - to be honest, it looks like it might be eligible for speedy deletion as an entirely promotional piece. In any case, I do not see that WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG are met (the references mentioned above show that he has worked, not that he is notable.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is also worth noting that the "keep" !votes above are SPAs and/or known paid editors. --bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : article is being reviewed, career section added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natashahuart (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC) — Natashahuart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Like Bonadea, I don't see that the references support sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. For example, the claim "celebrated globally in publications such as Vogue" has a "reference" that seems to merely indicate that he once had one photo published in the magazine. Looks like intentionally deceptive writing to me. I also agree that the history and behavior of some of the contributors to this discussion should raise concerns of a conflict of interest, inappropriate paid editing, and/or sock puppetry that is wider than just this one article. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might start a SPI tomorrow - one of the SPAs was blocked for removing maintenance templates, and a brand new account popped up and started doing the same thing... meanwhile the article is being edited to become more and more promotional. No skin off my nose, but it is a bit annoying that the accounts that claim that they want the article kept are doing their best to prevent it from being improved. --bonadea contributions talk 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and check for socks. I couldn't find any sources discussing Papetti's work. Sources in the article exaggerated. Appearing in National Geographic meant he opened a member account there and uploaded some photos. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Bonadea and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one doesn't seem even close to achieving notability. As noted by bonadea, it fails the general criteria as well as those under "Creative professionals". A basic web search turns up little; more specific searches turn up even less. --Larry (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A question at the Teahouse shows that this article was created as a birthday present to the subject. Certainly, the closing administrator will ignore any "keep" recommendations by newly created SPA accounts. I have not been able to find any evidence that this photographer is notable. Taking photos of notable people does not confer notability on a photographer. Significant biographical coverage in reliable sources is needed, and is lacking here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 23 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 18:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cottage Hill Road[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2003 and unreferenced since 2009. There is nothing to indicate why this road is notable, its just a road Gbawden (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –Fredddie ™ 03:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 03:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - County routes are generally not notable enough for their own articles. Dough 48 72 03:13, 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) 07:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daren Metropoulos[edit]

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

Daren Metropoulos doesn't seem to have notability as a businessperson distinct from his father's notability. Only one of the citations in the article seems to provide a basis for a notability claim, and that is his purchase of Hugh Hefner's mansion. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited and we cannot make one an article because he bought a big house. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 9 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, possibly leaning towards keep. Many if not most of the references cited in this article do not make any mention of Daren Metropoulos, which is problematic. The few sources that do mention him by name are this sort: [30] It seems to me that if we cannot locate sufficient sources now, there is a likelihood this Wikipedia article may return in the future. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in his own right. The claims for personal significance of his executive role are unsupported by third party references. The bulk of the article is about a company his family owns, not him personally. Articles such as that just cited above show nothing more than that his father gives him moeny to buy an expensive house. It is of course possible that he may become notable in the future, and that would be the time for an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Let us try one more week--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per DGG. Much of the article consists of referenced statements about the family business ("Metropoulos & Co acquired The Castle ...", "Metropoulos & Co acquired Pabst Brewing Co..."), interspersed with unreferenced statements about this person ("Daren installed a new management team ...", "Daren was appointed Co- Chief Executive Officer and played an intimate role ..."). Both should be removed; once that is done, there's little or nothing left here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:43, 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Toronto mayoral campaigns[edit]

As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Stintz mayoral campaign, 2014, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Soknacki mayoral campaign, 2014 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014, 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, there has never been any consensus 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, Klaus Wowereit doesn't have one of these, Bertrand Delanoë doesn't have one of these, and on and so forth — no mayoral candidate in any city on earth, even much larger ones than Toronto, has ever qualified for this degree of treatment before, and there's no reason why mayoral candidates in Toronto would warrant a special degree of coverage far beyond what any mayoral candidate in New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles or London or Paris or Berlin has ever been given. Any content that's worth keeping should be merged directly into Toronto mayoral election, 2014 and/or the candidates' existing standalone bios, but these spinoff articles are overdoing it and should be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both 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 14:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and any others that may appear. That's what the main election article and the individual (bio) articles are for. freshacconci talk to me 20:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per all of the above reasons. It would set a bad precedent to allow run-of-the-mill campaigns to have articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Content could be merged into the election page or the candidate articles. Having a candidate mayoral campaign page for a municipal election isn't worth keeping. ///EuroCarGT 23:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per the precedent cited in the nomination. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above.--Truther2012 (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary content forks. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014. Downwoody (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. We've never had individiual articles for individuals who actually do run for mayor in local elections. There is plenty of space in the somewhat meagre Toronto mayoral election, 2014 to add information about the campaigns of the leading candidates. Nfitz (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy so that content can be merged to the election article, then delete. Kingjeff might have a different view but I think this was always the eventual intent for these pages. There's useful material here that should be in the election article. Ivanvector (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have no idea why Toronto's mayoral election is being treated like some election in a city with only 10,000 people in it. This clearly meets WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't being treated that way. It's being treated the way we treat all municipal elections. The mayors listed above whose individual campaigns don't have separate articles govern cities of 8,405,837; 2,718,782; 3,884,307; 8,196,700; 3,517,424; and 12,292,895; versus Toronto's 2,615,060. It's not being treated like a small town, it's being treated like every other municipal-level election. Ivanvector (talk) 20:44, 23 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Kutty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ok, I'll call it. This article is a CV for a lawyer. Though the article's list of citations would appear to support any claim to notability, a more cautious look suggests that Kutty isn't notable - he only comments or acts around other notable topics. A few searches of the internet reveal much about what Kutty thinks, but nothing whatsoever about what others think of him. This leads me to believe that the primary reason for this article's existence is to legitimise an otherwise unremarkable and non-noteworthy man. Parrot of Doom 06:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A keep argument could be made based on his citations. WP:AUTHOR states a person is notable if "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." This list notes his citations among his peers. He *may* pass WP:AUTHOR depending on whether 50 citations means he is "widely cited." Since he's an adjunct professor, I don't see him passing WP:ACADEMIC (hasn't held a named chair). Many of his citations are also not RS (his LinkedIn page for example) and I have not been able to find reliable secondary sources on him. PaintedCarpet (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is widely cited in books about Islamic law. See [31], so he seems notable to me.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has numerous citations on Google Scholar and is quoted in news media around the world; he is not just an adjunct professor alone but a widely published author, public speaker and full time professor. He is also included as one of the 500 Most Influential Muslims in the world The 500 Most Influential Muslims by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre in Amman, Jordan and the Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. If he is not notable then not sure who is. See the previous call made to delete him as well, where decision was made to keep him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorlegaleagle (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of citations available by him at Google Scholar, and articles about him in a couple of publications can be found online, too. Criticism about the layout, disorganization and format of the entry is no reason to delete something. The solution should be to clean it up; I've started the job for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.30.193 (talk) 17:39, 20 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuell Benta[edit]

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

Non-notable minor actor, playing minor characters; created his own obscure YouTube webseries but nowhere near notable, to my way of thinking. Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:NACTOR, as it looks like he hasn't had any significant roles. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aerospeed: Actually he's had three significant roles in notable TV shows. –anemone projectors– 09:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AnemoneProjectors: I asked you to elaborate on how his role in EastEnders: E20 (a show I admit to having never watched) is notable when our article indicates that he only appeared in the final season. Power Rangers Operation Overdrive is only the 15th of 21 seasons of that show overall. He played one of about 10 main characters in that one season, and one of easily 200+ in the show overall, many of whom don't appear to have articles (a lot of the ones who do have articles are probably similarly notable to Benta and the articles will eventually be deleted). Our article on The Cut lists him as the 20th of 22 actors in the show, only four of whom have Wikipedia articles. Our article List of The Cut characters says he has only appeared in 19/40 episodes, and 9 actors who have appeared in more episodes than him do not have articles. I've asked you enough times to please elaborate as to why you think this actor's having had fairly minor roles in these shows makes him inherently more notable than the other actors in those shows: why have you not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Why have I not? I thought I had. But I will expand, without comparing him to other actors who do or do not have articles (which one should definitely not be doing in AFD). Each season of EastEnders: E20 has a different set of main characters. He plays one of three main characters in series 3. It's a significant role in the series and the series is notable. You say in The Cut that he is listed as 20th out of 22 actors, which refers to the infobox. I don't know what order this is in, it's meant to be order of appearance, but the article says "Jay Kelso (played by Samuell Benta) is the main protagonist of Series 1", which in my mind gives him a significant role in a notable series. The article for Power Rangers Operation Overdrive lists him (in the "cast" section) second, and as he appears in all 32 episodes. So it's just one season. So what? It's still a significant role in that particular season, which is notable on its own as it as its own Wikipedia article. So significant roles in multiple notable television series. Not minor ones. –anemone projectors– 07:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Now you've finally answered my question about those shows that I don't know, and I thank you. The fact remains, though, that the article cannot be improved beyond a list of roles in relatively obscure shows mainly populated by non-notable actors. There is no reason to assume Benta is more notable than any of them, especially when no sources have yet been found that cover his bio in any detail. I don't know how much trouble you went to find those eight sources below, but I searched around for a while before my BLPN post, and couldn't find anything, and as I pointed out below none of those sources are any good for our purposes (the only ones that talk about his bio at all are interviews). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he's more or less notable than anyone else, I'm just saying he's notable, full stop. And that's per Wikipedia's notability guideline for actors. The article already is more than a list of his roles. We know a bit about his heritage and his schooling. It's not much, but it's more than just a list of roles. He's also received four award nominations (for himself, not his show), one of which is from a notable organisation (Screen Nation). I picked the eight sources I did because they are proper news companies and not random blogs, plus the people presenting the awards, and one governmental organisation. I didn't search too hard, but did go beyond page 1 of a Google search. I didn't check all search results, so there might be more. I just didn't have the time or energy. To be honest I think we need more opinions! –anemone projectors– 15:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His role in EastEnders: E20 was one of the lead characters, so a significant role, especially as it's a spin-off of one of the UK's most popular television series. It also looks like his roles in Power Rangers Operation Overdrive and The Cut was significant, too. So that makes multiple significant roles, and passes WP:NACTOR. But the article definitely needs more sources. –anemone projectors– 17:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My view on this topic is complicated, so bear with me. As I already posted on BLPN, this actor is essentially only notable for his Power Rangers role, where he played maybe the fifth- or sixth-most prominent character. Going by our article on it, E20 was essentially a short-lived webseries that happened to tie-in (loosely?) with a well-known TV show in which he apparently did not appear, and the claim that he was one of the leads in E20 appears to be iffy at best; he apparently only appeared in the last "season" which lasted one month. The Power Rangers thing, though... essentially the only two things that set him apart from the other 200-ish actors who have had equally- or more-prominent roles in that show are that (1) he was a Black Ranger who is actually Black (something that is mentioned in the article but with no source -- I don't think one will be found) and (2) he (allegedly) did something very bad that has made him very unpopular among the show's fans. I don't want to state it here, but 29:20~30:20 of this video reports apparently a well-known incident that is the only noteworthy point about this actor. We, however, can't point out the most noteworthy piece of information about the topic since there are no reliable sources that go in-depth on this person, and even though we have semi-reliable sources like the linked video, semi-reliable is not good enough for accusations of stealing against LPs. No sources can be found that either confirm or disprove this accusation of stealing. Numerous IPs and SPAs have tried to (sloppily and offensively) add the information to the article and been reverted/blocked/revdel-ed. Others appear to have a specific agenda of promoting the actor.

Essentially what I'm saying is that there are not enough sources to objectively cover this actor. We can either use promotional self-published material that glosses over the only incident he's known for, or limit ourselves to a list of minor credits he has received.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Power Rangers Operation Overdrive, EastEnders: E20 and The Cut are all notable television shows, and his role in each is significant. Just because his series of EastEnders: E20 was broadcast over a month doesn't make the role insignificant, or the show non-notable. –anemone projectors– 21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that my deletion rationale is based on WP:GNG. NACTOR is subordinate to GNG. This actor has had fairly minor roles in a couple of reasonably well-known shows, but his participation in these shows has not received any significant coverage third-party reliable sources. If he had, a source could be found for either the statement "at the 2007 Powermorphicon he stole a signed poster from a charity auction and has yet to return it or apologize" or the statement "many Power Rangers fans have accused him of stealing from a charity auction in 2007, but this claim has been disproven". I asked for sources and was met with "he appeared in some TV shows, therefore he is notable". 182.249.240.32 (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)[reply]

How about these for starters: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]? Just because one incident isn't included (possibly because of right to be forgotten) doesn't mean there aren't plenty of sources about him. –anemone projectors– 08:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent is newspaper article about online media that lists him along with several others because he has a webshow. It gives his age and hometown, and no other biographical information.
Brent & Kilburn Times is a local newspaper from his hometown, with an article on his webshow. It doesn't give any biographical information on him apart from said hometown's name the fact that he made the webshow. So far the only biographical information is contradicting itself. (They could easily both be right, but which do we use? And how much of an article can we build with just a list of places he lived and a list of the shows he acted in?)
Times is a short interview about his webshow. It gives no biographical information, and while it may be useful as a source for an article on the show, it does not provide significant coverage on him. It is also neither independent nor neutral, as interviews are generally considered WP:PRIMARY sources.
Digital Spy is another interview with the subject. It may or may not demonstrate the notability of one or more of his acting projects, but doesn't help us write a biographical article on him.
London Evening Standard is yet another short article on his webshow. Please read WP:NOTINHERITED: sources on his show do not help the biographical article on him meet GNG.
Brent is a local government source that says even less about one of his ... short films (?) premiering in the area in question. It provides no information whatsoever on the subject himself. How can we use it to improve our biographical article on him?
Mobo mentions his name in a list of nominees for a particular award. The winner in that category does not have a Wikipedia article, and of the three other nominees the only one with an article is Wil Johnson, another BLP based almost entirely on primary sources (interviews).
BEFFTA is another source discussing his show, not his biography, and even then it is essentially a list of award nominations.

The one incident is not mentioned because none of these sources give us any information at all about his biography. They are all about film and (web)TV projects he has worked on. If you want to try creating articles on those works ... well, none of them already have articles. WP:NOTINHERITED makes it clear that sources discussing his film and TV projects, not him, do not help his biography article meet GNG. And in this case none of the related topics even have articles! If those are the best sources that can be found, this article will be deleted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:41, 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, slakr^\ talk / 06:21, 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.

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

The result was merge to Amplify (distributor) (or alternative target). This would appear to be the route preferred by the majority of commenters Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ContentBridge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ContentBridge

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion because ultimately I can't see where the company passes WP:CORP. I'm also concerned about the promotional aspect of the article, along with the staff section that I feel gives WP:UNDUE weight on the staff members' accomplishments in general, but would like a full AfD. I came across it via a speedy for WP:A7 (notability) and WP:G11 (advertising). There are sources to show that the company does have an assertion of notability, so it's being brought here. While there are sources on the article, they don't really go into depth about the company to where it would ultimately pass our notability guidelines and most are primary in some way or another (either for the company or primary websites for past ventures of staff members.) I've included a rundown of the sourcing below. The article is promotional, but I'd like for this to run through a full AfD rather than to have someone nominate it for a speedy. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page of the article prior to bringing it to AfD.

Sourcing
Primary source, which cannot show notability as it is the official website. Press release, so it's also primary. YouTube Video. This is probably one of the few usable-ish sources, as it's an episode of This Week In Startups", which is run by Jason Calacanis. Another press release Company website, primary. Variety. This is at best trivial, as the article does not focus on ContentBridge and only quotes someone from the company in relation to something that is not specific to ContentBridge. [http://www.contentbridge.tv/products Company website, primary. IFPI report that does not mention the company at all. Billboard article that also does not mention the company. It quotes someone within the company, but the company itself is not mentioned. Notability is not inherited by the company having people who may or may not have individual notability, nor is notability given by one of the people within the company being someone that the media would go to for a quote. Routine listing of an event that one of the ContentBridge staff members was invited to. This would be trivial or primary at best as it is not actual in-depth coverage and it's expected that staff members of a successful company will be invited to various things, so it's not a show of notability for the company- especially since the company is not mentioned. Even if it was, the site is kind of dodgy. Routine database listing at the New York Times for a staff member, one of several similar things at various sites. Database entries like this are trivial or primary at best and cannot show notability. Routine database listing for a staff member Link to a primary website for something one of the staff members was included with. Please note that this has nothing to do with ContentBridge and is just used to bolster up the staff member section. Routine staff bio on a primary website Primary source Appears to be a routine listing for an event the staff member attended. Routine database listing Primary source Press release This one is an actual article, but it just seems like it's taken liberally from a press release. Primary source ContentBridge is a member of the Media & Entertainment Services Alliance, so MESA would have an interest in writing about their members in a favorable manner.

Sourcing

Primary source, which cannot show notability as it is the official website.
Press release, so it's also primary.
YouTube Video. This is probably one of the few usable-ish sources, as it's an episode of This Week In Startups", which is run by Jason Calacanis.
Another press release
Company website, primary.
Variety. This is at best trivial, as the article does not focus on ContentBridge and only quotes someone from the company in relation to something that is not specific to ContentBridge.
[http://www.contentbridge.tv/products Company website, primary.
IFPI report that does not mention the company at all.
Billboard article that also does not mention the company. It quotes someone within the company, but the company itself is not mentioned. Notability is not inherited by the company having people who may or may not have individual notability, nor is notability given by one of the people within the company being someone that the media would go to for a quote.
Routine listing of an event that one of the ContentBridge staff members was invited to. This would be trivial or primary at best as it is not actual in-depth coverage and it's expected that staff members of a successful company will be invited to various things, so it's not a show of notability for the company- especially since the company is not mentioned. Even if it was, the site is kind of dodgy.
Routine database listing at the New York Times for a staff member, one of several similar things at various sites. Database entries like this are trivial or primary at best and cannot show notability.
Routine database listing for a staff member
Link to a primary website for something one of the staff members was included with. Please note that this has nothing to do with ContentBridge and is just used to bolster up the staff member section.
Routine staff bio on a primary website
Primary source
Appears to be a routine listing for an event the staff member attended.
Routine database listing
Primary source
Press release
This one is an actual article, but it just seems like it's taken liberally from a press release.
Primary source ContentBridge is a member of the Media & Entertainment Services Alliance, so MESA would have an interest in writing about their members in a favorable manner.

The only usable source on the article is the Variety article, which is trivial at most. A search for further sourcing did not bring up enough to show notability per WP:CORP and the only somewhat usable source I found is this mention, but that's not enough to show notability. Ultimately this just fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also came to this article because it was tagged for CSD. A7 is not applicable as there is a claim for notability. G11 is in my opinion borderline, because deletion of the section with bios would go a long way to making the thing less promotional. I agree with Tokyogirl that AfD is the appropriate venue for this. The (paid) creator of this article is strangely unwilling to take good advice on the article's talk page. Given that they are paid for this but we are not, I didn't feel compelled to edit the article to make it less promotional. Anyway, now that we are here, the sole question to answer is not whether the article is promotional (because that can be remedied by good editing), but whether it meets WP:CORP. The detailed nom above makes it abundantly clair that this fails bot CORP and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (not sure if I get a vote) I am the paid editor of ContentBridge, my disclosure is on the talk page. An assumption has been made that I am getting paid for this time which is not the case. First, it appears that at this point that there is consensus on the removal of the personnel details to a bare list, despite my contention that the officer's outside commercial interests may be relevant to the reader. As for notability some of the sources listed above are self-sourced but go to the personnel section WP:NNC, my understanding is that these entries need not be notable (only article and lists) and the references are provided as a convenience to the reader. ('m sure that we are all well aware that the Reference sections are not indexed so there's no other reason include these references.) What I can't understand is how the following list of sources can be belittled towards claims of notabilityWP:ORGIN. And the references (provided below) clearly exceed WP:OBTOP and WP:OBSCURE.

References relevant to ContentBridge notability
Schwartz, Rob (4 July 2014). "Golden Melody Awards Turn 25: Global Industry Talks 'Road to Recovery,' Jason Mraz & JJ Lin Perform in Taiwan". Billboard Magazine. (Peterson gives keynote speech on emerging supply-chain and digital-rights (ContentBridge addressed) issues; however, instead being credited as CEO of ContentBridge, he is errantly credited as CEO of GoDigital, a position he handed off in 2010.) Rachel Abrams (10 March 2011). "Opportunity knocks for indie producers". Variety magazine. Chris Tribbey (26 February 2014). "ContentBridge Takes on Amplify’s Digital Supply Chain Duties" Mesa Alliance. Latchem, John (19 August 2014)."DEG Adds Five New Members". HomeMedia Magazine. ( See Google News HomeMedia Magazine is ranked Alexa #52776 US and #189,758 World "ContentBridge adds Visit Films". http://advanced-television.com. Advanced Television. 28 January 2014 (Filed under articles: content -- another from this source was a press released and filed as such.) Calacanis, Jason (14 December 2009). "Jason's Shark Tank: Content Bridge". This Week in Startups (YouTube)This Week in Startups ([40]) ranks a #5 on Google PageRank and is Alexa #44,312 in the US and 105,187 in the world. Jason Calacanis declared the "pitch" and product a winner back in 2009

References relevant to ContentBridge notability

Schwartz, Rob (4 July 2014). "Golden Melody Awards Turn 25: Global Industry Talks 'Road to Recovery,' Jason Mraz & JJ Lin Perform in Taiwan". Billboard Magazine. (Peterson gives keynote speech on emerging supply-chain and digital-rights (ContentBridge addressed) issues; however, instead being credited as CEO of ContentBridge, he is errantly credited as CEO of GoDigital, a position he handed off in 2010.)
Rachel Abrams (10 March 2011). "Opportunity knocks for indie producers". Variety magazine.
Chris Tribbey (26 February 2014). "ContentBridge Takes on Amplify’s Digital Supply Chain Duties" Mesa Alliance.
Latchem, John (19 August 2014)."DEG Adds Five New Members". HomeMedia Magazine. ( See Google News HomeMedia Magazine is ranked Alexa #52776 US and #189,758 World
"ContentBridge adds Visit Films". http://advanced-television.com. Advanced Television. 28 January 2014 (Filed under articles: content -- another from this source was a press released and filed as such.)
Calacanis, Jason (14 December 2009). "Jason's Shark Tank: Content Bridge". This Week in Startups (YouTube)This Week in Startups ([40]) ranks a #5 on Google PageRank and is Alexa #44,312 in the US and 105,187 in the world. Jason Calacanis declared the "pitch" and product a winner back in 2009

In my experience, a corporate officer in speaking engagements and interviews is always acting on the behalf of his employer and corporate officers go to great lengths to ensure the occasions when their comments do not reflect the views of their employers. Peterson has been the CEO for the ContentBridge effort even prior to the formation of the LLC, as the former CEO of GoDigital. WP:GNG

Since we appear to have a consensus on the personnel, I'm going to go reduce the Personnel section to a bare list and see if that alleviates the perception WP:G11 (advertising).009o9 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed (commented) the Key personnel section from the ContentBridge article, keeping a list would just duplicate what is already in the infobox. At this point it looks like the article would read better without a Contents box and remove the section headings and just make it one long lede so the early history does not need to be restated in the Overview section.009o9 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I overlooked that I had GoDigital, rather than GoDigital Media Group listed as the parent in the articles's infobox. ContentBridge and GoDigital are entirely independent sister firms, launched under the GoDigital Media Group startup incubator -- I apologize that I hadn't caught this typo sooner. 009o9 (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references cited by 009o9 make the case for notability and meet the threshold of independence as outlined WP:CORP. Just as importantly, the writer of the article edited the article (deleting the bios) in response to it being too promotional, following the suggestion of Randykitty. DependableSkeleton79 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, most of those sources are primary or appear to have been taken directly from a press release. I don't see where there has been any true, independent coverage of the company to where they'd pass notability guidelines. Have you looked at the outline of the sourcing that I posted? Here's an updated one, since some of the sourcing was removed and one was added:

Updated list of sourcing
Press release, so it's also primary. Routine listing of an event that one of the ContentBridge staff members was invited to. This would be trivial or primary at best as it is not actual in-depth coverage and it's expected that staff members of a successful company will be invited to various things, so it's not a show of notability for the company- especially since the company is not mentioned. Even if it was, the site is kind of dodgy. Routine database listing at the New York Times for a staff member, one of several similar things at various sites. Database entries like this are trivial or primary at best and cannot show notability. Routine database listing for a staff member Primary source Routine staff bio on a primary website Link to a primary website for something one of the staff members was included with. Please note that this has nothing to do with ContentBridge and is just used to bolster up the staff member section. Primary source Appears to be a routine listing for an event the staff member attended. Routine database listing Home Media Magazine source that appears to be taken fairly directly from a press release Primary source Primary source YouTube Video. This is probably one of the few usable-ish sources, as it's an episode of This Week In Startups", which is run by Jason Calacanis. Another press release Variety. This is at best trivial, as the article does not focus on ContentBridge and only quotes someone from the company in relation to something that is not specific to ContentBridge. Primary source IFPI report that does not mention the company at all. IFPI report that does not mention the company at all. Billboard article that also does not mention the company. It quotes someone within the company, but the company itself is not mentioned. Notability is not inherited by the company having people who may or may not have individual notability, nor is notability given by one of the people within the company being someone that the media would go to for a quote. Press release This one is an actual article, but it just seems like it's taken liberally from a press release. Primary source ContentBridge is a member of the Media & Entertainment Services Alliance, so MESA would have an interest in writing about their members in a favorable manner.

Updated list of sourcing

Press release, so it's also primary.
Routine listing of an event that one of the ContentBridge staff members was invited to. This would be trivial or primary at best as it is not actual in-depth coverage and it's expected that staff members of a successful company will be invited to various things, so it's not a show of notability for the company- especially since the company is not mentioned. Even if it was, the site is kind of dodgy.
Routine database listing at the New York Times for a staff member, one of several similar things at various sites. Database entries like this are trivial or primary at best and cannot show notability.
Routine database listing for a staff member
Primary source
Routine staff bio on a primary website
Link to a primary website for something one of the staff members was included with. Please note that this has nothing to do with ContentBridge and is just used to bolster up the staff member section.
Primary source
Appears to be a routine listing for an event the staff member attended.
Routine database listing
Home Media Magazine source that appears to be taken fairly directly from a press release
Primary source
Primary source
YouTube Video. This is probably one of the few usable-ish sources, as it's an episode of This Week In Startups", which is run by Jason Calacanis.
Another press release
Variety. This is at best trivial, as the article does not focus on ContentBridge and only quotes someone from the company in relation to something that is not specific to ContentBridge.
Primary source
IFPI report that does not mention the company at all.
IFPI report that does not mention the company at all.
Billboard article that also does not mention the company. It quotes someone within the company, but the company itself is not mentioned. Notability is not inherited by the company having people who may or may not have individual notability, nor is notability given by one of the people within the company being someone that the media would go to for a quote.
Press release
This one is an actual article, but it just seems like it's taken liberally from a press release.
Primary source ContentBridge is a member of the Media & Entertainment Services Alliance, so MESA would have an interest in writing about their members in a favorable manner.

I honestly don't see where WP:CORP has been proven. The sources are all either primary or trivial and I haven't seen where any new coverage has been added that would firmly show notability. While there are a lot of links to primary and trivial sources on the article, having a lot of trivial and primary sourcing does not mean that a company is notable, as no amount of trivial/primary sourcing can take the place of actual coverage in reliable sources. In other words, don't take an abundance of sources on the article as proof of notability- sometimes what seems to be proof of notability is actually just a ton of sourcing that can't be used to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79 I see you are citing "primary" (references) or "trivial," to notability. I'm going to assume you mean WP:QUESTIONABLE when you say trivial because WP:TRIVIAL has nothing to do with notability.

The primary sourced references are not offered toward notability as you can see in my original response and list. The primary references support other facts about the organization that are not relevant to notability. This policy is plainly written in the title of WP:NNC Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. I have refrained from offering any (known) self-originating material for notability in my list, anything filed under "Press release" sections of the magazine(s), including a reprint of a press release by Reuters an organization which clearly maintains editorial control. However, I can't find a policy or guideline that restricts an independent author from paraphrasing press release and publishing that work under her byline.

WP:QUESTIONABLE Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Again, WP:TRIVIAL is not specific to notability so I presume you meant WP:QUESTIONABLE. I don't see where you have proven your (moving) case that the publishers I've offered toward notability have a poor reputation or are lacking editorial oversight. Additionally, when a corporate officer is speaking publicly, it is presumed that she is representing the views of the organization unless a disclaimer is provided that the view is inconsistent with or contrary to the organization's view. In fact, here is some boiler plate that is generally common to the vast majority of Policies and Procedures manuals for organizations: Remember that in responding to the media, you can be seen as representing and speaking for the university. Personal opinions should be clearly and carefully identified as such. In cases where the corporate officer's position is named in the article, the content clearly represents the face of the organization, the onus is your to prove otherwise. In the case of the [Billboard Magazine]] article, where the CEO is mistakenly credited to his former position, I'm sure that I can get a reputable publisher like Billboard to correct their mistake and I am contacting them directly.

A lot of magazines have subscribers and a lot of magazines serve niche topics WP:OBTOP, just because you are unfamiliar. with them is not proof that the publisher has a "poor reputation" or "no editorial oversight."

Finally, we have a subjective claim of WP:G11, but the policy on this is on Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION for which there are five subtopics. I assume the objection here is in number 5 which reads in part Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. If there is subjective or biased style or puffery in my writing, please point it out to me, as I see nothing rises to the level of WP:G11 and I have already made changes that may have significantly altered the context of the article.

References relevant to ContentBridge notability
Schwartz, Rob (4 July 2014). "Golden Melody Awards Turn 25: Global Industry Talks 'Road to Recovery,' Jason Mraz & JJ Lin Perform in Taiwan". Billboard Magazine. (Peterson gives keynote speech on emerging supply-chain and digital-rights (ContentBridge addressed) issues; however, instead being credited as CEO of ContentBridge, he is errantly credited as CEO of GoDigital, a position he handed off in 2010.) Rachel Abrams (10 March 2011). "Opportunity knocks for indie producers". Variety magazine. Chris Tribbey (26 February 2014). "ContentBridge Takes on Amplify’s Digital Supply Chain Duties" Mesa Alliance. Latchem, John (19 August 2014)."DEG Adds Five New Members". HomeMedia Magazine. ( See Google News HomeMedia Magazine is ranked Alexa #52776 US and #189,758 World "ContentBridge adds Visit Films". http://advanced-television.com. Advanced Television. 28 January 2014 (Filed under articles: content -- another from this source was a press released and filed as such.) Calacanis, Jason (14 December 2009). "Jason's Shark Tank: Content Bridge". This Week in Startups (YouTube)This Week in Startups ([41]) ranks a #5 on Google PageRank and is Alexa #44,312 in the US and 105,187 in the world. Jason Calacanis declared the "pitch" and product a winner back in 2009

References relevant to ContentBridge notability

Schwartz, Rob (4 July 2014). "Golden Melody Awards Turn 25: Global Industry Talks 'Road to Recovery,' Jason Mraz & JJ Lin Perform in Taiwan". Billboard Magazine. (Peterson gives keynote speech on emerging supply-chain and digital-rights (ContentBridge addressed) issues; however, instead being credited as CEO of ContentBridge, he is errantly credited as CEO of GoDigital, a position he handed off in 2010.)
Rachel Abrams (10 March 2011). "Opportunity knocks for indie producers". Variety magazine.
Chris Tribbey (26 February 2014). "ContentBridge Takes on Amplify’s Digital Supply Chain Duties" Mesa Alliance.
Latchem, John (19 August 2014)."DEG Adds Five New Members". HomeMedia Magazine. ( See Google News HomeMedia Magazine is ranked Alexa #52776 US and #189,758 World
"ContentBridge adds Visit Films". http://advanced-television.com. Advanced Television. 28 January 2014 (Filed under articles: content -- another from this source was a press released and filed as such.)
Calacanis, Jason (14 December 2009). "Jason's Shark Tank: Content Bridge". This Week in Startups (YouTube)This Week in Startups ([41]) ranks a #5 on Google PageRank and is Alexa #44,312 in the US and 105,187 in the world. Jason Calacanis declared the "pitch" and product a winner back in 2009

List toward notability provided again for convenience009o9 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding and retaliation[edit]

Irrelevant verbiage and insinuations (besides Too Many Words) hidden behind the veil of courtesy. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been notified that there has been direct retaliation against an editor who voted Keep. User_talk:009o9#Question_about_WikiHounding Apparently, the AfD procedure was usurped, with blanking and redirects on two of the (Keep) voter's articles, obviously taken directly from the editor's contributions list.Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding While investigating, I have come to realize that 100% of the editors involved with the deletion effort in discussion here (including the speedy) are administrators and are in contact with each other in some form. I am also cognizant that the deletion nominations are likely the direct result of my compliance with the Foundation's rules on disclosing paid editing. (A reference to paid editing is made in virtually every communication.) I expected problems resultant from disclosure, from those who will not tolerate paid-editing. This incident seems to confirm the expectation that very few WP:COI and WP:PAY editors will be willing to disclose their positions and adopt Foundation policy, even if they are perfectly capable of NPOV writing. This is just a guess, but by blanking and redirecting (instead of using the AfD process), if the editor did not remove the internal links on the parent page, they will now be circular references to themselves. Likely not a problem for the Wikipedia servers, but the reader will surely be confused when they have followed a circular redirect and end up reloading content, but going nowhere. 009o9 (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] I've said my piece on the sources and there has been precedent at AfD where we consider news coverage trivial if it has been predominantly taken from a press release. I outlined the sources a second time because ultimately there have been people who will come to AfD and state an argument without actually looking at the sources because they'll assume that a lot of sources means that some of them must show notability, which isn't the case here. And again, the Billboard mention is trivial because the article isn't about the company itself. As far as the other editor blanking the articles goes, he didn't blank them- he redirected them, which is fully within his rights to do. If an article has issues with notability and an editor cannot find sources, it is reasonable for them to WP:BEBOLD and redirect to an article as opposed to putting it through the deletion process. I do not see where either article (Bytemarks Café or Albert Okura: The Chicken Man with a 50 Year Plan) was put up for AfD, so there wasn't any usurping. If the editor wants, they can request that it be run through a formal AfD process. Now as far as you saying that myself or RandyKitty are hounding anyone out of malice or retribution, feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] I do have to add one thing- the thing about your paid editing is that there was concern over your initial reaction to my recommendations over the article and my comments over the coverage. The advice I gave you on the article's talk page and the stuff I've posted here is something that you will get from pretty much any editor that is experienced with editing and reliable sources, yet you tried to argue that the promotional staff bio section should remain and that the trivial sources were enough to assert notability. The thing that concerned myself and others was how you approached coverage in reliable sources, as it didn't seem that you really understood WP:RS very well. That's troublesome with a COI editor, as paid editors are expected to know our policy on coverage in reliable sources very, very well and while they are paid to upload articles on to Wikipedia, they're also expected to abide by our editing and notability policies. We've had paid editors that have not only been transparent about their COI, but also followed our policies to a T, so it is possible to be a paid editor and not receive harassment. It's just that we've had a lot of paid editors (I'd say anywhere from 75-90%) that have come on here and disregarded policies or tried to twist them to make it appear that something met guidelines, so people are understandably cautious when it comes to paid editors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] @User:Tokyogirl79 I will always respect those who give me inline help and I did do some rearranging on the ContentBridge article based directly from your suggestions and I thank you. (I contend the writing is factual, some passages needed work on flow, which did tone it down.) I was trying to work with you on resolving the article heading template tags, when you brought the declined speedy to AfD. Let's put aside your --rule of thumb about many references-- aside for a moment and just concentrate on notability, which appears to be comprised of "deep coverage", "multiple independent sources" and "significant coverage" of the topic (more than trivial but need not be the main topic). The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. (...) Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.WP:CORPDEPTH I have an 11 minute and 15 second Official YouTube channel interview with Jason Calacanis of This Week in Startups a Google PageRank #5 web magazine. The interview/pitch is exclusively on the ContentBridge topic and just prior to the LLC founding. This article/video affords plenty of information to write an article that is more than a brief incomplete stub -- and is from a reliable source. Now, let's examine the WP:GNG. "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 The topic at hand is "ContentBridge, Media Supply Chain Solutions" (not simply ContentBridge), which is taken directly from the corporate logo. In the Variety and Billboard Magazine articles, the CEO of ContentBridge is invited to speak about media supply chain solutions. In the 851 word Billboard Magazine article, 154 words (18% of the article) are attributable to Jason Peterson, the CEO of ContentBridge, speaking to media supply chain solutions. Our "topic" is ranking right up there with Jason Mraz and JJ Lin who are in the title of the article, but barely mentioned in the article. Additionally, none of the other 58 keynote speakers are quoted in the article. Likewise, in the 321 word Variety Magazine article, the ContentBridge CEO is the only one of many to be quoted with 137 words (43%) attributable to CEO Peterson/ContentBridge. The significance is that ContentBridge was contacted and known for subject expertise, the fact that a person with his own notability agreed to make the on the record statements is irrelevant, because if lower-level personnel had made these statements all notability go to ContentBridge. So, in wrapping up this portion, the deep coverage is gleaned from the This Week in Startups the significant coverage, the multiple independent sources are the internationally known This Week in Startups, Billboard Magazine, Variety Magazine and several lesser known trade-specific magazines. Notability has been established here, three ways from Sunday. If your friends with administrative privileges are going to search for AfD candidate articles, they should refrain from voting in AfD discussions and concentrate on uncontested speedy deletions. It also reeks of impropriety and retribution when an administrator searches an editor's contributions, looking for something to punish them for their vote. This used to be called stalking, but has recently been renamed to Wikihounding because stalking has real life consequences. (Incidentally, creating those circular redirect references you say are perfectly within the guidelines would make outstanding targets for DDoS attacks.) It is off-putting, that in every conversation I've found, with you discussing ContentBridge, I can't recall one where you have not mentioned that I have a paid declaration. The fact that an editor is paid is irrelevant in a notability discussion, mentioning it when you invite someone to participate in AfD tends to show a presumption of malice to induce motivation. Everybody has some sort of COI, otherwise nothing would get written and every reader (with an ounce of sense) is aware of this. One thing I've learned about writing is that it is far more likely for an editor to have a COI about an artist that they like, a candidate or a cause that they support than it is with writing for paying client, clients have no idea what is in the MoS and the guidelines. The problem with paid writing, is bending over backwards to avoid the preconceived notion of advertising as the motive and article flow. I can honestly tell you, the internet (search engine) facing side of the Wikipedia is inconsequential for most corporations. Building their history and trustworthiness (open editing) is the reason they are here.009o9 (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Darn! You found me out. Yep, I'm a notorious wikihounder/stalker. And ever since I passed my RFA, I have been suffering from delusions of grandeur. Don't worry too much about the latter, though, because once the new meds that my shrink prescribed kick in, that should be better. As for the hounding, if you have problems with any edits I made, please report them at WP:ANI, so that they finally will indefinitely block me and WP will be a better places for you and your skeleton pal. But leave all those walls of text out of this AfD, because that discussion doesn't belong here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant verbiage and insinuations (besides Too Many Words) hidden behind the veil of courtesy. Drmies (talk)

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

I have been notified that there has been direct retaliation against an editor who voted Keep. User_talk:009o9#Question_about_WikiHounding

Apparently, the AfD procedure was usurped, with blanking and redirects on two of the (Keep) voter's articles, obviously taken directly from the editor's contributions list.Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding While investigating, I have come to realize that 100% of the editors involved with the deletion effort in discussion here (including the speedy) are administrators and are in contact with each other in some form. I am also cognizant that the deletion nominations are likely the direct result of my compliance with the Foundation's rules on disclosing paid editing. (A reference to paid editing is made in virtually every communication.) I expected problems resultant from disclosure, from those who will not tolerate paid-editing. This incident seems to confirm the expectation that very few WP:COI and WP:PAY editors will be willing to disclose their positions and adopt Foundation policy, even if they are perfectly capable of NPOV writing.

This is just a guess, but by blanking and redirecting (instead of using the AfD process), if the editor did not remove the internal links on the parent page, they will now be circular references to themselves. Likely not a problem for the Wikipedia servers, but the reader will surely be confused when they have followed a circular redirect and end up reloading content, but going nowhere. 009o9 (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've said my piece on the sources and there has been precedent at AfD where we consider news coverage trivial if it has been predominantly taken from a press release. I outlined the sources a second time because ultimately there have been people who will come to AfD and state an argument without actually looking at the sources because they'll assume that a lot of sources means that some of them must show notability, which isn't the case here. And again, the Billboard mention is trivial because the article isn't about the company itself. As far as the other editor blanking the articles goes, he didn't blank them- he redirected them, which is fully within his rights to do. If an article has issues with notability and an editor cannot find sources, it is reasonable for them to WP:BEBOLD and redirect to an article as opposed to putting it through the deletion process. I do not see where either article (Bytemarks Café or Albert Okura: The Chicken Man with a 50 Year Plan) was put up for AfD, so there wasn't any usurping. If the editor wants, they can request that it be run through a formal AfD process. Now as far as you saying that myself or RandyKitty are hounding anyone out of malice or retribution, feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to add one thing- the thing about your paid editing is that there was concern over your initial reaction to my recommendations over the article and my comments over the coverage. The advice I gave you on the article's talk page and the stuff I've posted here is something that you will get from pretty much any editor that is experienced with editing and reliable sources, yet you tried to argue that the promotional staff bio section should remain and that the trivial sources were enough to assert notability. The thing that concerned myself and others was how you approached coverage in reliable sources, as it didn't seem that you really understood WP:RS very well. That's troublesome with a COI editor, as paid editors are expected to know our policy on coverage in reliable sources very, very well and while they are paid to upload articles on to Wikipedia, they're also expected to abide by our editing and notability policies. We've had paid editors that have not only been transparent about their COI, but also followed our policies to a T, so it is possible to be a paid editor and not receive harassment. It's just that we've had a lot of paid editors (I'd say anywhere from 75-90%) that have come on here and disregarded policies or tried to twist them to make it appear that something met guidelines, so people are understandably cautious when it comes to paid editors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Tokyogirl79 I will always respect those who give me inline help and I did do some rearranging on the ContentBridge article based directly from your suggestions and I thank you. (I contend the writing is factual, some passages needed work on flow, which did tone it down.) I was trying to work with you on resolving the article heading template tags, when you brought the declined speedy to AfD.

Let's put aside your --rule of thumb about many references-- aside for a moment and just concentrate on notability, which appears to be comprised of "deep coverage", "multiple independent sources" and "significant coverage" of the topic (more than trivial but need not be the main topic).

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. (...) Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.WP:CORPDEPTH

I have an 11 minute and 15 second Official YouTube channel interview with Jason Calacanis of This Week in Startups a Google PageRank #5 web magazine. The interview/pitch is exclusively on the ContentBridge topic and just prior to the LLC founding. This article/video affords plenty of information to write an article that is more than a brief incomplete stub -- and is from a reliable source. Now, let's examine the WP:GNG.

"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

The topic at hand is "ContentBridge, Media Supply Chain Solutions" (not simply ContentBridge), which is taken directly from the corporate logo. In the Variety and Billboard Magazine articles, the CEO of ContentBridge is invited to speak about media supply chain solutions. In the 851 word Billboard Magazine article, 154 words (18% of the article) are attributable to Jason Peterson, the CEO of ContentBridge, speaking to media supply chain solutions. Our "topic" is ranking right up there with Jason Mraz and JJ Lin who are in the title of the article, but barely mentioned in the article. Additionally, none of the other 58 keynote speakers are quoted in the article. Likewise, in the 321 word Variety Magazine article, the ContentBridge CEO is the only one of many to be quoted with 137 words (43%) attributable to CEO Peterson/ContentBridge. The significance is that ContentBridge was contacted and known for subject expertise, the fact that a person with his own notability agreed to make the on the record statements is irrelevant, because if lower-level personnel had made these statements all notability go to ContentBridge. So, in wrapping up this portion, the deep coverage is gleaned from the This Week in Startups the significant coverage, the multiple independent sources are the internationally known This Week in Startups, Billboard Magazine, Variety Magazine and several lesser known trade-specific magazines. Notability has been established here, three ways from Sunday.

If your friends with administrative privileges are going to search for AfD candidate articles, they should refrain from voting in AfD discussions and concentrate on uncontested speedy deletions. It also reeks of impropriety and retribution when an administrator searches an editor's contributions, looking for something to punish them for their vote. This used to be called stalking, but has recently been renamed to Wikihounding because stalking has real life consequences. (Incidentally, creating those circular redirect references you say are perfectly within the guidelines would make outstanding targets for DDoS attacks.)
It is off-putting, that in every conversation I've found, with you discussing ContentBridge, I can't recall one where you have not mentioned that I have a paid declaration. The fact that an editor is paid is irrelevant in a notability discussion, mentioning it when you invite someone to participate in AfD tends to show a presumption of malice to induce motivation. Everybody has some sort of COI, otherwise nothing would get written and every reader (with an ounce of sense) is aware of this.
One thing I've learned about writing is that it is far more likely for an editor to have a COI about an artist that they like, a candidate or a cause that they support than it is with writing for paying client, clients have no idea what is in the MoS and the guidelines. The problem with paid writing, is bending over backwards to avoid the preconceived notion of advertising as the motive and article flow. I can honestly tell you, the internet (search engine) facing side of the Wikipedia is inconsequential for most corporations. Building their history and trustworthiness (open editing) is the reason they are here.009o9 (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! You found me out. Yep, I'm a notorious wikihounder/stalker. And ever since I passed my RFA, I have been suffering from delusions of grandeur. Don't worry too much about the latter, though, because once the new meds that my shrink prescribed kick in, that should be better. As for the hounding, if you have problems with any edits I made, please report them at WP:ANI, so that they finally will indefinitely block me and WP will be a better places for you and your skeleton pal. But leave all those walls of text out of this AfD, because that discussion doesn't belong here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the articles on GoDigital and Amplify (distributor), and possibly also Variance Films, under the title Go Digital Media Group. The Group is, according to its own website, not a startup incubator, but a holding company. As far as I can decipher it, it is basically the holding company for GoDigital, and its spinoffs. Content Bridge is simply one of them , a spin-off for a supporting product developed in-house; similarly for Amplify. Both articles are in my opinion quite promotional, as is any article that goes to a significant extent into the bio of multiple corporate officers, and tries to list them in the lede paragraph, or one that mentions the individual films distributed by the company. (As I understand it distribution company is one that buys the right to distribute the film, as distinct from a production company that finances and organizes the work on the film. A production company can have a contributing artistic role; a distributor does not.) The same might be true for the article on [[Amplify] .another of the related spin-offs--it should be merged also. There might possibly be enough material for an article on Peterson. That the head of a company is frequently quoted by newspapers on general topics related to their industry can sometimes contribute towards notability for the individual, to the extent they show status as an expert. To the extent those articles are press releases about his own firm's work, they are not independent, and of course in an industry depending on publicity, there can be a fuzzy line there. The head of a sufficiently major company can also be notable on that basis, but I think Logan Mulvey rather than Peterson is the head of the combined operation (The article on him needs checking also)

FWIW, I was notified about this afd, so I can be added to the list of co-consipirators, tho, as I often do, I have proposed my own solution, which seems to be different from theirs'.

I have looked at the other articles involved. When I see dubious articles , I always look to see what else the editor might be doing. The two merges were entirely proper--if not merged, they would have surely been deleted. Yellow Green Beret: Stories of an Asian-American Stumbling Around U.S. Army Special Forces (series) is a self-published book held in only one library. I have nominated the article, an extremely detailed description for deletion as G11 & will certainly use AfD if necessary (FWIW,, Kirkus, will, if paid, publish a review for any self-published book, and is no longer reliable. I will probably nominate FLOW MMA also at afd. these days The nature of the arguments for keeping the article shows sufficient COI that there would be precedent for disregarding them altogether, but we should nonetheless go with the references. If I can identify more related articles, I will look at them also. DGG ( talk ) 12:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a merge into other pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we've come full circle, a GoDigital Digital Media Group article was originally desired, but I declined because the investment organization (GoDigital Media Group) doesn't have the press and couldn't see how a simple interest in a group of separate LLCs would justify an article. (Additionally, I've never seen an article of a group of corporations, based upon common shareholders.) My guess is that we will wind-up back in AfD discussing an article split for notability. Jason Peterson is the current CEO of GoDigital Media Group and ContentBridge, Logan Mulvey succeeded Peterson at GoDigital, when he moved laterally to nurture ContentBridge in 2010. This information was documented in the Key personnel section, and a major reason for doing the ContentBridge article was to disclose, in a conspicuous place, the overlap in the duties of some of the corporate officers serving both ContentBridge and GoDigital (aka some primary refs). The GoDigital, Amplify (distributor) and Variance Films articles are not my works, other than some half sentences wikilinking back to the ContentBridge article. The dust is still settling on the GoDigital and Variance Films merger and I have not been engaged those topics, but they probably are on my watchlist.009o9 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "a major reason for doing the ContentBridge article was to disclose, in a conspicuous place, the overlap in the duties of some of the corporate officers serving both ContentBridge and GoDigital " -- is this the function of a writer of an encyclopedia article or a press agent? DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(2) "to nurture" a company is not encyclopedic language, but promotional jargon.

(3) It's not exactly that they have "stockholders in common" but they are all operating arms of the same company, which apparently assigns its executives to whichever one is appropriate at the time.. We usually do merge in subsidiaries.

(4) I think you would do well to confine your editing on these articles, or a combined article, to their talk pages. Having commented here, I cannot take action as an administrator, but if you continue to edit them in mainspace, I will recommend at least a topic ban. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I went ahead and double checked my understanding of the term, "en·cy·clo·pe·di·a enˌsīkləˈpēdēə/noun a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." Is there some constraint, that I don't know of, against embracing the goals of both Wikipedia and the subject? I am an independent researcher and data analyst, not a press agent - the disclosure of overlap in the management goes to WP:BALANCE it is important because firms have many customers in common.

(2) I've seen a lot more colorful terms on discussion pages. Did I use the word "nuture" in article space?

(3) I wasn't aware of that and have never noticed such an article.

(4) I would not have edited the article at all if it were not for what appeared to be consensus from everyone involved at the time and allowed under Non-controversial edits 1 and 5.WP:LUC Whoever edited the article last and left it in such poor shape hasn't spoken here yet, without a consensus from those involved here, I don't even feel comfortable cleaning up those unfinished edits.009o9 (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain for the moment - it is definitely still promotional in tone but could probably be fixed. Deb (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. None of the 16 references seems to provide significant coverage about this company from independent reliable sources. I don't know what the article looked like earlier - from the comments above I guess it must have been even more promotional than it is now. But it still devotes an entire paragraph to a completely irrelevant speech by the CEO. Also there is a "corporate milestones" table which is trivial and largely unsourced. In any case, it's not the writing, it's the lack of sources actually about the company that dooms this article IMO. No amount of rewriting can make up for a subject that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if anyone can come up with a logical merge to a subject that IS notable, I would certainly support that. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten for tone, removing the section headings seems to allow better organization/flow. See the talk page. Talk:ContentBridge#Updated_content_for_tone Regards 009o9 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the proposed version is an improvement. However: the paragraph about Peterson's speech is not directly pertinent & the refs should not be used to drag in quotes from him; the name of the software is used too often (try "it" as a replacement); key people other than the ceo is excessive detail for most companies; "componentized" is jargon (there are several ways of saying the same thing in English); "solution" is jargon, but if used at all is appropriate only to a combined hardware-software package; and the corporate milestone section needs to be removed (the precise date each customers adopted it is excessive detail) -- & not changed to hidden test (hidden text in an article fails the requirements for accessibility); I've rewritten it as "Further Revised Version" (the refs need some further cleanup) DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your version looks fine to me with the exception(s) that ContentBridge is a complete/custom "solution." It is Software as a Service, sitting on a private cloud (so hardware and Comm is included); it has an API, and (I believe) an internal (corp) network version. (There is also an option for a completely verbal telephone arrangement.) "The software can be divided up" is not really accurate, the film, recorded music and music publishers each have their own "customs," but there is no industry standard per se, so componentized (or modular), reflects the way the software was designed. Finally, the CEO was speaking on behalf of the corporation, the corporation's industry focus seemed relevant at the time. I'll have a look at trimming the remaining unused references in your edit. Thanks 009o9 (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the broken/references added the Billboard and Variety references in at appropriate passages. The lede is still wrong, ContentBridge does not supply "encoding software" they supply "encoding solutions" (end to end solution -- the software is not for sale) and I believe I used that term "encoding solutions," so that I would not be taking directly from one of the references. I can live with the "can be divided up" verbiage, but it's not accurate, would prefer "modular" if you still have a problem with "componentized", which is accurate. Talk:ContentBridge#Further_revised_version Regards, 009o9 (talk) 08:47, 15 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, slakr^\ talk / 05:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a version being discussed on the talk page at Talk:ContentBridge#Further_revised_version Regards, 009o9 (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, really per DGG, and it seems to me that Amplify is a good target. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is everybody clear on the fact that 'GoDigital' and 'GoDigital Media Group' are not the same entity? So just as GoDigital Media Group's other assets did not factor into the GoDigital - Variance Films business-merger to form Amplify, Content Bridge LLC's assets were also unaffected. The only article-merge that remotely makes any sense is under the start-up (incubator) firm GoDigital Media Group, but even then, I don't see how the leap is made without inheritance. GoDigital has absorbed many other firms without a name change, but the name change to Amplify indicates that GoDigital Media Group's interest in the firm has been diminished.

A merger of GoDigital and Variance Films into Amplify (distributor), leaving redirects, makes perfect sense to me, but ContentBridge (Content Bridge LLC) is not a part of that asset group. 009o9 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the least clear it's separate--it seems to be a spinoff sharing the same officers at various times, and presumably the same corporate control. I don't see a company's name change as necessarily indicating anything. i do not think GDMediaGroup is a true start up incubator in any sense--it seems rather to be a holding company--what has it sponsored besides this group of related firms? DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"GoDigital Media Group (“GDMG”) is a media and technology incubator and early stage venture capital fund. Founded in 2005, its portfolio companies are recognized industry leaders in the monetization of music, movie, and television assets. GDMG’s operating businesses include:"[42]

Cinq Music – 360 degree distribution, protection, and collection services for recording artists
GoDigital – Full service distribution of over 1500 motion pictures through every window from theaters to nearly 500 million homes around the world on dozens of digital platforms such as iTunes, Amazon, & Netflix
AdShare– Monetization of audience engagement online for over 2.8 million copyrights including an MCN on YouTube with over two billion consumer impressions per month
ContentBridge Systems – A leading provider of digital supply chain solutions and technologies to the media industry 009o9 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoDigital Media Group was founded a full three years before GoDigital. Did Mulvey bring the idea to GDMG for incubation/financing and then call it 'GoDigital' -- likely but I don't know. "Mulvey co-founded GoDigital in 2008 as a student at LMU."[43] 009o9 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the corporate name (GoDigital to Amplify) is quite significant, it means that the firm being acquired was not just another weakling to be absorbed out of bankruptcy as some of the others may have been. It looks like Mulvey was retained at the top, but other changes occurred in upper management. IMHO It is very risky to change your brand (corporate name), think of all of the copyrights that have to be changed for starters and the inconvenience to the customer of having to learn the new name of their vendor/supplier. Just having to look the new name up, gives the customer(s) a chance to discover the competitor's offerings. 009o9 (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see anything in the resources that attests to notability. That Reuters announces a new CEO generally just means that they got the press release. The use of the press release from the company and sourcing to the company's web page are actually poor reference practices and should not be used. If all of the poorly sourced info in the article were removed, there would be no article. (Yes, I'm looking at the version on the talk page.) In fact, I'm having a hard time understanding what the content of the article is, other than to say that this company exists. There's just no there here. The article really should be removed, and if the company becomes the next Facebook or Google, then there will be reliable sources talking about it and an article will be justified. LaMona (talk) 18:07, 23 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 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin's Chocolate Thins[edit]

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

The topic does not meet WP:GNG. News source searches and those in Google Books are not providing significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, claims in the article such as "'Thins' are a popular and top-selling biscuit brand" and "It is generally accepted that most people require an even number of 'Thins' as they are almost always eaten in the form of a 'Chocolate thin sandwich'" are entirely unsourced, the former of which is advertising for the product. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - its possible there are a few "styles" of biscuit that are notable (in the same manner as digestives or piroulines for example) and that "thins" or "chocolate thins" are a notable style. But brand-specific chocolate thins are unlikely to be notable and I'm not seeing any evidence that this brand's product is notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Stalwart111. I don't see any notability after looking around, there maybe some tweets about the biscuit and it is still not enough. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please - at best it might get two words under a list of Griffins products. Not notable at all. NealeFamily (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, not at all notable.CoronaryKea (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:19, 22 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 merge to Landmark Worldwide. Even some of those arguing for delete (including the nominator) acknowledge that the article, even if not stand-alone notable, should be referenced in the parent article. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous[edit]

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

This has been to AfD twice already, twice it was kept. But I am not convinced. First of all, it reads like a hit piece, and it's worth pointing out that the creator and main editor of the article is topic-banned from the area of "new religious movements". Anyway, here's the argument: it is essentially POV, and it's not notable by our standards. My apologies for this lengthy AfD rationale.

POV: the Background section is totally UNDUE for an article on a documentary, and contains nothing but negative information on the subject of the documentary; that section, though well verified, is not neutrally written and way too long. The section on the "on-screen commentators" is essentially like the plot summary for a work of fiction, except that here it serves to restate what's in the documentary: that this Landmark business is terrible. This violates NPOV, in my opinion. There is more suggestion and soapboxing in "Report of the 1995 French Parliamentary Commission", where again bringing up the "plot" of the documentary serves to dish out negative info about this "cult", and note the damning "coincidentally" section, with its suggestions of suggestions that the French government deemed Landmark a cult ("suggests" is the operative verb of the second sentence, but the reference is primary: hence "suggests" is OR/synthesis).

Now, it will be argued that the documentary is notable because of the scandal associated with it, but you will find that an overwhelming number of sources for that section are primary sources, besides a couple of non-notable blogs. In other words, I am not convinced that a. this was so important and b. besides, it's not the documentary but the actions of Landmark that caused this consternation--which suggests that the thing be merged in Landmark Worldwide.

Finally, the GNG--I can't find anything in Google Books, and this is already ten years old. A regular Google search produces a blog or two from 2004-6, but nothing, really nothing that says anything meaningful about the documentary, and nothing reliable. In a previous AfD it was stated that 1.5 million people watched this documentary when it was on TV, as if that is enough for notability, but even that is not verified, certainly not in the article.

No, at best this warrants mention in the Landmark article. It reads like a hit piece, with notability supposedly established by the blue-linked people interviewed in it, by the reliable sources that actually pertain to the organization, and by supposed controversy over the club trying to stop distribution by the internet (kind of equivalent to BLP1E, one might say). Without sources that actually discuss the documentary, and with its tendentious and undue content, this needs to be deleted.

Just to make things clear: I have nothing to do with this club, nor with any organization that charges money to make people think they feel good, but I do not wish to see Wikipedia used as a tool. Not this kind of tool anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I said "mention in the Landmark article" might be appropriate; I see now that there's also Landmark Education litigation as a possible target for a merge (I had no idea there were so many "related" articles). What content is to be merged, though, needs rigorous secondary sourcing: I notice with some trepidation and dismay that the litigation has, at best, 3 1/2 secondary sources--the rest is all primary material and various website. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 06:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. After reading the nomination, when I clicked through I expected to see an article that was a poorly-sourced mess. I did not find that. I found an article that, while it could do with some cleanup, is well-referenced and is about a clearly notable documentary. I normally lean towards deletion on questionably-notable articles--sometimes even jumping the gun in recommending deletion. However, this is an easy call, in my view, and might even qualify as a speedy keep. This article isn't even close to qualifying for deletion. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not understand how you can say this is well-referenced. Which of the existing references are about the documentary? Which establish the documentary as notable in any way? I have ~~wasted~~ spent almost an entire day going through, translating, searching for archives, etc. and I have not found a single one of these references to be a reliable source providing context or establishing notability for this. It looks like an attack piece that did not get any notoriety even with the local media, let alone any lasting significance or impact. Please provide examples from the article that demonstrate that it is well-sourced. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep notable documentary about Landmark Education. Many sources. Has been written about in governmental sources, news sources and other secondary sources. i count around 42 notable secondary references, despite the nominator's pruning.

Zambelo; talk 09:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's a challenge, Zambelo. Find me one single news source, just one, from a reliable source, not some advocacy website, that discusses the documentary in any kind of depth--not one that just mentions it in the context of some lawsuit. Or even in that context! One trustworthy source with significant coverage, "directly and in detail", as required by the WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuits are proof enough of notability. They were high-profile cases involving the EFF, and then there is also the litigation against at least one of the participants on the show - Jean-Pierre Brard. Wikipedia:Notability describes notability as:

"Significant coverage" - yes, it's a national broadcast in France, and broadcast to many francophone countries.
"Reliable" -yes
"Secondary sources" - yes
"Independent of the subject" - yes
"Presumed" - well, there was no prior discussion, the article was simply nominated for deletion.

The documentary is discussed in the context of the lawsuits - not only was this a popular show, it was made even more popular by the subsequent lawsuits. References to either are perfectly valid. Zambelo; talk 23:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- You completely misunderstand everything. You're saying it's notable because it was on TV, but I asked you for "significant coverage" in, ahem, secondary sources. So really, your answer is, "no, I don't have any secondary sources". And what you just added to the article, that's WP:SYNTH--I removed it again, because we simply cannot do that. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of secondary sources in the article. Zambelo; talk 07:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But none of them discuss your documentary. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of them do. Just not in the context you are looking for. Zambelo; talk 17:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first glance, it might look like there are a lot of sources here, but it's all smoke and mirrors - many of the article's sources predate the event in question, and so aren't about the show itself, a couple others are at the time of the show, and the rest are either or not notable or all about the internet kerfluffle and not the show itself. There are actually only a couple of reliable sources about the show itself, all from at the time, and thus all in line with the one event policy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well referenced. Mion (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mion: - Can you provide an example of a reliable secondary source in the article that is about the film? Tgeairn (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of sources about this film and its impact. However, this really has to be trimmed down; much of the facts are irrelevant to the film itself. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we please be provided with some reliable references that actually discuss the documentary? For starters, Bearian and others, look at this version. And then see what's left, and how much of the content that's left has secondary sourcing that's about the actual documentary. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I removed, really removed, two highly problematic sections from the article, containing synthesis and based on highly doubtful sourcing (if based on anything at all). See the sections "Repercussions and "Report of the 1995 French Parliamentary Commission" on the article talk page. AfD or not, we simply cannot have what an uncharitable editor might call "POV pushing." And the more I look at this, the more I am dismayed. I just removed a few External Links that are clearly not directly relevant or incorrectly listed (duplicates). Drmies (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly undue weight to a tv program of transient interest, inadequately referenced, and clearly only created as part of pushing a specific agenda. DaveApter (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator has presented the case for deletion clearly, but to add or repeat:

The Background section is completely UNDUE and unnecessary. This text (and the 14 sources that support it) is entirely about something that is at best remotely indirectly related to the video. Nothing here fits with anything that should be in an article about this film (See MOS:Film)
The film itself does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NOTFILM. Specifically, it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
The film itself does not meet any of the exception criteria at WP:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability
The sources provided are almost exclusively one or more of:

related to the production or distribution (which are specifically disallowed by WP:Notability_(films)#Reliable_sources for establishing notability)
primary sources which support the names, titles, job descriptions, or works of the cast (and Notability is generally WP:NOTINHERITED)
press releases - which are never useful to establish Notability
not about the film - such as the EFF citations which are about a DMCA takedown notice, not primarily about the film which is necessary to establish Notability

I attempted to edit the most egregious of the poor sourcing out of the article, and we were still left with an article that had absolutely zero secondary sources to establish the Notability of the film. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about the EFF, see [[44]] which is all about the movie and how the movie should be removed from the internet, the EFF is a proper secundairy source, this movie was all over the news in 2004. Mion (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have here the LA times covering the showing up of the movie on youtube [45] ,LA times is a proper secundairy source. Mion (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources are about the video. The EFF page is about "Landmark's Misuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (the video is only mentioned as background) and the LA Times article is about "Google Inc.'s video service faces at least one copyright infringement lawsuit", which is about Google and financial liability. The LA Times article then references EFF and the DMCA notice which then references the video. We need to have sources that are actually directly about the video (not that mention it). --Tgeairn (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters [46] i cant think of a better source, all these sources are only there because of this video, it is why this video was so important in the news, try to read them.Mion (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That (Reuters) is the exact same article as the LA Times one (syndicated). Again, it is clearly about copyright infringement and possible financial liability. The article even says that Google declined to comment on a link to the Landmark/EFF case. THEN we get a mention of the EFF case and the video. This is not an article about the video. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

of course its all about this video, without it there would be no copyright infringement and possible financial liability from this video, what you are saying is like a news article about a car accident that there is no car in the article as the article also mentions personal injury. Mion (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The documentary here is being discussed in relation to the high-profile cases brought against Landmark as well as the litigation of Landmark against the participants in the documentary and against organisations hosting the documentary. The documentary is also notable because of the cases brought against landmark, but also because it was a national broadcast. It is mentioned in enough sources to demonstrate notability - that it was overshadowed by the subsequent court cases is a non-issue, since it is already demonstrably notable enough for an article without mentioning the legal cases, which only add to the notability of the documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambelo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per excellent nom's arguments (and merge any useful content to Landmark Worldwide) where it belongs. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom's exceedingly thorough analysis. This is a part of a series of articles related to Landmark, all of which need sourcing, pruning, merging, and/or deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randykitty. Hafspajen (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a reason this article has been straight "keep" at its TWO previous AFDs: It's a notable documentary. Landmark should not be rewarded for its litigious nature, as it currently is being rewarded at the main Landmark article, as well as related articles, in which almost anything of a remotely critical nature is removed. Now whole articles are being nominated for deletion. This is similar to what Scientology and Scientology-related articles went through, though on a smaller scale. LHM^{ask me a question} 05:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That the creator of the article has been banned from editing NRM-related articles is not an issue here. We are looking at the facts: is this a neutral article about a notable documentary? Yes. There are secondary sources in the form of news articles, governmental sources, and writings that discuss the documentary directly, and other sources that discuss the documentary in terms of the response to the documentary: namely the litigation launched by Landmark against participants of the show and websites hosting the video, as well as the case opened by the EFF against Landmark. Close to 46 relevant and reliable secondary sources. This is probably more secondary sources than on any other article on any other nationally and internationally-diffused documentary on Wikipedia. Zambelo; talk 07:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two previous AfDs were years ago. Since then, things have evolved here and we have become a bit more stringent with adhering to notability criteria. None of the current sources provides evidence of sufficient notability, no matter how often you and LHM state triumphantly that the article clearly is notable. The documentary exists, it was on TV so presumably some people watched it. That's all. --Randykitty (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The notability policy is no different now than then. What's different is that there are now a group of editors determined to see articles containing information critical of Landmark deleted. That's it. LHM^{ask me a question} 13:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And their bribes are tax free! More seriously, however, please have a look at WP:AGF, thanks very much for the effort. --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith is a little hard to muster when you look at the articles that have been tagged for deletion and all the critical information that has been deleted by editors who have ben pushing for the deletion of this article. You'd have to be blind to not see the connection. Zambelo; talk 14:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who switched of the light here? Darn, have to interrupt this fascinating conversation as I just ran into a wall. Where's my white stick?!? --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may find that the stick may be in that other place without any light. Hope your head is alright. Zambelo; talk 15:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the references? Zambelo; talk 08:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is not an extraordinarily famous documentary, but on top of the DMCA/EFF controversy there are short pieces about it in Le Point [47] and Le Parisien [48], and longer one in L'Humanité [49] that I could find on-line. The Belgian Le Soir also covered it [50]. The French-speaking press isn't great at having web archives, so I think it's fair to presume that more coverage probably exist[ed] at the time (which was about 10 years ago.) I'm not sure what other hats Karin Badt wears (besides "Associate Professor of Cinema and Theater in Paris" -- at Paris 8 University as it turns out [51]) but she has a long piece in Huffington Post [52], which mixes coverage of the documentary with a bit of her own investigation/follow-up of sorts. JMP EAX (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- JMP, I'm about to check these links out, but let me thank you already for doing what none of these other "keep"ers were able to do: present actual evidence. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  The person nominating the article is responsible for making the case for deletion, and for doing what JMP has done before even nominating the article, if I read deletion policy correctly. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your AGF. I wasn't able to find these articles, nor, apparently, were any of the defenders--and that's the more grievous bit here. I note that not a single one of the keepers has offered a reliable secondary source that discusses the topic and is not a TV preview. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please save your lectures. The editors recommending "keep" determined that the article was notable from the evidence they had at hand. JMP went even further, finding additional sources that further established notability. The onus is on the nominator, not the editors recommending "keep." LHM^{ask me a question} 02:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were already plenty of references demonstrating notability Drmies, but regardless - now that you've finally come to the same conclusion as the rest of us, and all the references, perhaps you would like to change your vote? Zambelo; talk 11:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Please point me to where ALT Drmies agrees with you. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I wasn't able to find these articles, nor, apparently, were any of the defenders--and that's the more grievous bit here. I note that not a single one of the keepers has offered a reliable secondary source that discusses the topic and is not a TV preview.

Since plenty of secondary sources not of the TV-preview variety have since been provided, there you go. Unless of course, you are now just arguing for the sake of argument. ˜˜˜˜

- OK. While I appreciate the effort, these are the typical preview reports that the press publishes after a reviewer has seen the program (or a preview), and they are published for just about every program that's not another installment of Big Brother--or, in this case, Le Loft. But perhaps Randykitty, who has been said to have watched some French TV in his time, can shed more light on this matter, if his light hasn't been turned off permanently. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the light! It came on this morning, phew, I was scared for a moment. I had a look at these links and like Drmies and (below) Hoary say, these are just the announcements that can be expected if a documentary promises revelations of scandal. I would be more impressed if there had been coverage after the documentary had been aired. This is not in-depth, it just regurgitates what the TV channel or documentary makers themselves have told the media (i.e., this is akin to a press release). --Randykitty (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which references you're looking at, but there are plenty that cover the documentary after it was aired... try looking at the references in the Response and commentary section. Are you sure the light is all on there? Zambelo; talk 09:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info and comments. We read at the start: "This has been to AfD twice already". As I see no links, here are links: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (2006), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous (2nd nomination) (2007). ¶ This article is painfully verbose: he said this, and then he was asked this, and so he said this, et cetera. Even if the program is as noteworthy as it might possibly be, I don't see why the write-up shouldn't be cut by two thirds or more. ¶ I see little evidence that the TV program has been discussed. I do see discussion of the availability of the material within it, and of the program as a whole. This seems similar to the Tom-Cruise-enthusing-about-Scientology-to-Scientologists video, which is discussed, I think adequately, within one fifth or thereabouts of Tom Cruise#Scientology. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The documentary was discussed in several secondary sources later added to the article - in the form of newspaper articles and others. le Parisien, Huffington Post, Lepoint.fr, Dialogue Ireland, Telerama, RomaniaLibera.ro. The documentary was also discussed by multiple secondary sources in relation to the legal issues relating to the EFF and Landmark's cease and desist filings. Finally, it is also referenced in published works, such as Susan Palmer's book. It is a little verbose though, yes - but since it was nominated for deletion, the number of reliable secondary sources has more than tripled. I don't think it should be cut by two thirds,it currently contains an introduction, a summary of the interviews conducted, a section on the aftermath, and a section on the legal fights, all of which are important to the article. It can be slimmed down slightly, certainly. Zambelo; talk 02:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think we're going around in circles. Still: It was announced on websites of note (as documentaries promising revelations often/usually are). And after it was shown it was mentioned on websites, etc. Dialogue Ireland is not a negligible website but it also looks iffy. And what other article about a single TV program translates/quotes sequences of utterances made by multiple people interviewed for/in the program? -- Hoary (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles such as Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, for example, summarise the documentary quite extensively - and this is what this article is doing through a few extracts from the held interviews. Zambelo; talk 04:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that the Enron article is one-fourth the size of the article under discussion here - and that for a documentary that won several international awards and was nominated for an Academy Award, right? --Tgeairn (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the size, we can work on that - instead of deleting the article. But size has nothing to do with exposure. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambelo (talk • contribs) 03:29, 23 September 2014

Delete Nominator makes a thorough case, with which I concur. No in-depth commentary on this, or genuine notability. Wikipedia is not well served by hit pieces like this, regardless of the merits or otherwise of their target. Merge any worthwhile content to Landmark Worldwide. Begoon ^talk 18:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Landmark Worldwide. The delete nomination is moderately but not completely convincing. Without concerning myself with the nature of the article in the past, or the motivation of past editors, I don't see the article in its recent or current state as a "hit piece". I do see it as a very wordy affair about a TV program of minor notability. Yet there seems to be a real effort to provide sources for what the article says. The article on Landmark may have a paragraph or two about the program; in order to help create this, the earlier versions of the article "Voyage au pays..." should remain available via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voyage_au_pays_des_nouveaux_gourous&redirect=no . -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently started editing the main Landmark article, I'd be willing to bet that many of the editors there would STRONGLY resist any attempt to put a paragraph about this critical documentary into the article. LHM^{ask me a question} 11:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're too quick to judge, Lithistman. The lawsuits give more than enough warranty for a paragraph or to. Oh! What Randykitty says.
But I take offense at the tone of your comment: you strongly suggest that "those" editors will resist because the documentary is critical of Landmark. If you suggest one more time that I am not editing neutrally because somehow or other I support what Landmark is doing, I will post it on ANI as a personal attack. You don't know me--you don't know shit about me--and you have no right to make such claims. First of all, because AGF et cetera, and second, because I happen to detest any cult/brainwashing organization/pay-for-play "selfhelp" group. This is the kind of incivility that sometimes makes editing here akin to wading through shit. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you felt attacked. However, my comment was clearly a general one, about my own experience of what happens to material at all critical of Landmark at that article. In my experience, even well-sourced criticisms are removed fairly quickly. I have been given little reason to hope that any inclusion of even the barest summary of what this documentary says about Landmark would be treated any differently. Treating my summary of how critical material has been treated at the Landmark article as "incivility" is just, well, quite silly. Taking it to ANI would be even sillier, but do what you feel you need to do, I guess. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds like an acceptable solution, as the sources verify enough to support a paragraph in another article, circumventing the problem of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 23 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 no consensus. This demonstrates the perennial problem with multi-nom AfDs. Some of these are possibly notable; others are probably not. I'd suggest that, if not, they be dealt with individually by BOLD merging and/or returning to AfD singly. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Gribble[edit]

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

This article is 98% original research and almost entirely an in universe narrative/essay. If all of the WP:OR was deleted, the result would be a couple sentences and an infobox. There isn't enough content here to warrant separate articles about every character from King of the Hill, and in fact, not only does the main TV show article contain bios about the characters, but there's also an article List of King of the Hill characters, which describes them in more detail. The separate articles are massive overkill and should be redirected to the List article, or to the main TV show article. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also group nominating the following related articles based on the same rationale. Not enough content for separate articles and the list of characters is sufficient. Any minor bits of info from the separate articles can be merged there:

The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as nominator is not actually proposing deletion but rather merger. Just put a merger template on the top of each page you want to merge and discuss your proposal on the talk page. An AfD discussion is not required in this case. Keresaspa (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. As a meta-argument, I don't think this should be speedy closed. The reason is that centralized discussion venues are superior to localized discussions, because experience has shown that any policy-grounded arguments can be vetoed by a small clique of enthusiasts. This is especially true of pop culture articles. Using AfD to obtain consensus for or against merging from neutral editors is to be preferred. Reyk _YO! 03:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These topics are covered in numerous sources including:

Television Cartoon Shows: an illustrated encyclopedia
Cult TV: The Comedies
The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows
The Magic Behind the Voices
Drawn to Television: Prime-time Animation from the Flintstones to Family Guy
America Toons In: A History of Television Animation
Queers in American Popular Culture
Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010
Animated 'Worlds'
God, Man, and Hollywood: Politically Incorrect Cinema

The nomination's claims are not supported by any evidence and, as noted above, aren't actually proposing deletion but just some kind of merger/cleanup. But AFD is not cleanup. The discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK "fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Andrew (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the articles per nominator, they are overcoverage. And you can't build articles out of OR. Redirecting leaves article history intact and if someone wants to merge they can do so. Also, keep this discussion open because WP:NOTBURO and a proposed group redirect is not different from deletion. Arguing to forcibly close a discussion for technical reasons appears as through there's no objective argument to keep the articles and so other methods to keep them from being deleted or redirected need be employed. And Reyk's argument is pertinent as well, RE: a centralized location where a broader consensus can be obtained. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hank Hill, who is a notable character in his own right. The rest may be legitimate candidates for merger to List of King of the Hill characters, but I do agree with Andrew that AfD is not intended to be a place for extensive merger discussions. This page is crowded enough without them. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Folks, this isn't a merger discussion. I clearly stated that the articles should be redirected, which is the same as deletion but saves the article history. I figured I was being kind by suggesting this as opposed to outright deletion and that anything useful could be merged afterwards. In any case, I'm not seeing much that disputes my rationale for redirecting these articles, except for maybe Hank Hill. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is a specific function which makes the page and its edit history invisible to ordinary readers. This function is restricted and that's why we have deletion discussions - to agree consensus for the use of this specific function. Deletion discussions are not appropriate when other kinds of editing actions are wanted. Moving/merging/redirecting pages are ordinary edits for which no special permission is required. You should not bring discussion of such actions to AFD as the AFD process is already overloaded to breaking point. Andrew (talk) 22:31, 16 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 02:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge all as is. Since Hank Hill is notable, some of the characters could be merged into List of King of the Hill characters. JJ98 (Talk) 00:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close discussion but reopen it without Hank Hill or as individual nominations. The fact that numerous editors feel or will feel that Hank alone should be an independent article will make it very difficult to determine an independent consensus for the other pages.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the articles per nominator. They are overcoverage.Taram (talk) 23:05, 22 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 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RINF[edit]

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

Non-notable alternative news website, no sources present or located, previously a deleted PROD that was recreated earlier this month. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:13, 31 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:10, 8 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 02:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability, no independent sourcing. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:18, 23 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jhangail (Baloch tribe)[edit]

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

This article about a Baloch tribe has been tagged as a possible hoax since July 28. The only mentions of the Jhangail tribe on Google come from Facebook pages, Youtube/Dailymotion videos, and Wikipedia articles/mirrors, where a group of sockpuppets have been creating "Jhangail" pages and adding unsourced mentions of the tribe to Baloch and Pakistan-related articles. I strongly suspect that this is an attempt to promote a made-up (or at the very least non-notable) tribe. Passengerpigeon (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 31 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, even if it isn't a hoax the tribe is clearly not notable. Jinkinson talk to me 14:46, 8 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 02:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unresolved hoax concerns. That, combined with the lack of sourcing and references - it's a clear delete Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:29, 23 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nain (surname)[edit]

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

Nothing is notable or informative in this article, spent a few minutes to find something, but there is nothing available to source or expand. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:11, 8 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 02:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Existence does not imply notability; just that a surname exists in multiple regions is not notable by itself, but documented wide spread and/or importance. Also bad linking for the word "Jats", which is now linked to some journal system instead of the Jat people by context (was stuck without clue for some time because of this lol). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jats link fixed now. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Just another name. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 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 no consensus. As usual, we can not agee on whethe existing souces are good enough. Defaulted to keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IWF Promotions[edit]

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

Advert for non notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two news articles (citations 3 and 4) are from Westword and The Greeley Tribune respectively. Do they not qualify as "independent reliable sources"? I easily found two more articles [53] [54] in a basic search. 72.74.200.86 (talk) 05:12, 5 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IP's findings are good enough for me, although the one from craigdailypress has little to do with the promotion.LM2000 (talk) 06:46, 8 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 02:47, 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.

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 Los Angeles election, 2011. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas O'Grady[edit]

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

Politician who has never won an election. The refs I can find are entirely local--I cannot locate the LA Times articles, but they would need to provide significant coverage, which I think unlikely . DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Normally we would redirect a losing candidate to the article about the election, but his was such an insignificant also-ran campaign (less than 5% of the vote) that it does not deserve that treatment. His other activities appear to be non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He actually received about 31% of the vote. The article is saying that by holding the incumbent to 54.5% of the vote, he came within 5% of keeping the incumbent below a majority and forcing a runoff. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I see. The article is so badly written, I thought it was saying he failed to achieve 5% - and the supplied link is dead so I couldn't check it. OK, in that case redirect to the appropriate election. --MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 18 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 02:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Los Angeles election, 2011. He got 2nd place in a notable race, where winning would automatically confer notability. He ran a credible campaign, and received an endorsement from the Los Angeles Times. I don't think he's notable enough for an article, but he definitely deserves a redirect, as is standard practice in these cases. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:58, 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 - no nomination/deletion rationale provided (non-admin close). St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Creative Photography[edit]

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

Note - Nominated by Owais khursheed with no deletion rationale. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could someone explain me why this article is being considered for deletion? // dieselp

Speedy keep. Notable, verifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:33, 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.

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 Gaurav Pandey. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti 24 x 7[edit]

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

"Film to be released in early 2013" and listed as a upcoming film-even odder is looking at the history as the page started in 2010. Also I can't find this film when I looked it up. Is this a hoax or something? Wgolf (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I should add that yes I'm well aware films get delayed all the time (I look up upcoming films a lot and have been doing that for years), but something about this seems....off. Wgolf (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-okay looked around some more and its not a hoax-(the only link I could find earlier was to a site that had the same info as here), but I can only find info of this coming out. This might be notable sometime. (I feel bad now after tagging this, when I looked this up before I tagged it most results I got were just for food places) Wgolf (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup... searchable: WP:INDAFD gives results for Spaghetti 24 x 7 Gaurav Pandey

Redirect the searchable title (for now) to director Gaurav Pandey, where this stalled title may be spoken of and sourced within context of his career. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I do agree a redirect be the best as it seems like a project that has been going on for a while. (when I searched for it the 2nd time I decided to put in India film as when I just tried the title earlier basically got food sites ha ha) Wgolf (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We allow recreation once this thing is (if ever) completed and released. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete this page as sufficient references are added now, it is true that the film has been delayed, tat does n't mean that the page should be deleted. Rajeshbieee (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon Rajeshbieee... I fully understand your position, and agree that multiple sources exist toward this planned project. But I ask you to read WP:NFF... a film guideline that tells us that while it may have coverage, until a film is confirmed as actually filming, it should not have an article. Yes, this is not quite as strict as a MUST NOT have an article, as rare exceptions exist, but a redirect preserves the current article's edit history and will send readers to where our rules allow that it can be written of. The very moment filming is confirmed, the redirect can be reversed and the article restored. Ping me with any questions. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- -also I do understand given that you did make the article, but a redirect would be the best. Now maybe someday if it comes out then yes it can be made. Wgolf (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gaurav Pandey is the better option. CutestPenguin ^discuss 06:26, 31 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:32, 8 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 02:37, 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.

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. After two relists there's no clear consensus to delete the article, but rather to revamp it and overhaul it - which I'll leave to those who suggested such. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of permaculture projects[edit]

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

This is a large article which has been around a long time with many refs. However, not a single ref is from a reliable and independent source. Almost all are own web-sites and the whole article has become a list of projects each promoting their own merits. I can see no notability here. I would suggest that any residual content could be merged back to Permaculture Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of AfDs which are for articles split for length. Invariably they get recreated over time because of the tendency for lists to grow. I agree that the sourcing for most of this is poor, and we devote far too much time to the subject on WP due to the tendency for advocates of it to use WP as a promotional platform, but all we can do is aim for a firm hand when curating it. The parent article is far too long for a backmerge at this time at any rate. I'd just ruthlessly eliminate material that isn't properly sourced (on both the list and the parent) and see if that helped to encourage better growth in future. If a backmerge does happen then, we can redirect (protecting the redir if necessary to prevent it from being recreated). I don't think the subject matter is inherently non-notable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible that one reason for this split was to eject a problem section that lacked proper sourcing but was popular among editors. Joja lozzo 02:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's very useful to have real world examples of applications of theory and that the article serves a purpose. I think the solution is to pare it down to notable examples (on which Velella has already made a good start) and make it clear that it's not a directory. I'd suggest being very rigid in requiring good secondary sources for every example. (I've also proposed changing the title to "Permaculture projects" to avoid the tendency to make it a directory.) Joja lozzo 02:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Agree that the article needs major overhaul & editing for notability. Re-examine after that process is complete. I believe there may be something valuable here; right now it's hard to tell. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:02, 4 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:37, 8 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 02:36, 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.

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

The result was no consensus (non-admin closure) Writing Enthusiast ^☎ 00:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Okonsar[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Zero independent references, thus failing WP:BLP. Extensively edited by the subject themself, thus massive and inappropriate wP:COI and self-promotion the panda ₯’ 16:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the deletion proposal based on: The information on "Musicians - notable.." says: 9. as won or placed in a major music competition. Thus please consider my several nominations and awards including the Gina Bachauer International Piano Competition (1991) among others

My opposition for the deletion proposal is based on the following:

There is no promotional or advertising tone in the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28music%29#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: Criteria for musicians and ensembles section: 9 "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Bachauer_International_Piano_Competition "Other notable laureates include Armen Babakhanian (1991), Mehmet Okonsar (1991), Violetta Egorova (1991), Kevin Kenner (1988), Vassily Primakov (2002), Lev Vinocour (2002), Luiza Borac (1998), and Junior competitors Nareh Arghamanyan (2000), Colleen Lee (1993), Rachel Cheung (2004), Aristo Sham (2008), Leonardo Colafelice (2012), Aimi Kobayashi (2012), Tony Yike Yang (2012), and Josh Wright[5] (2010)."

section: 5 Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). Please see:

   "TANGO, Best tangos by A. Piazzolla": personal arrangements for piano solo
   "Mehmet Okonsar Plays Gershwin" Complete works for the solo piano by Georges Gershwin and a personal transcription of the Rhapsody in Blue

Published at: "Rec by Saatchi", founded by Ercan Saatçi a National (Turkish) label which complies with the specifications mentionned above regarding "important indie labels" Please refer to: http://www.recbysaatchi.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoffuge (talk • contribs) 07:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references below, all of them not self-posted, are only a few I could have gather in a limited time, if needed I can include them in the main article References section:

http://www.cazkolik.com/CazkolikRoportajDetaylari/100563/ -> an independent radio in Turkey
https://eksisozluk.com/mehmet-okonsar--511829?nr=true&rf=mehmet%20okonsar -> sort of "who's who" in Turkey
https://www.ttnetmuzik.com.tr/artist/Mehmet_Okonsar___Astor_Piazzolla/502102/galeri -> largest online music store in Turkey
http://www.last.fm/music/Mehmet+Okon%C5%9Far -> Turkey's largest radio station
http://www.eventbrite.com/e/pianist-mehmet-okonsar-countdown-100-years-of-western-music-in-turkey-2014-2023-tickets-10135713191 -> London Event
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-257285-okonsar-pays-tribute-to-liszt-with-new-release.html -> "Zaman" the Turkish newspaper with the largest circulation (English version)
http://www.acikgazete.com/ingiltere/2010/03/19/turk-piyanist-mehmet-okonsar-royal-opera-house-da.htm?aid=34359 -> online newspaper
http://e-gazete.anadolu.edu.tr/ayrinti.php?no=5493 -> online newspaper
http://www.radiosefarad.com/mehmet-okonsar-el-inventor-de-musicas/ -> online radio Spain
http://www.piano.or.jp/enc/Pianists/detail/115/ -> PTNA Japan, Japan's most important piano website
http://www.londragazete.com/?p=7101 -> London newspaper in Turkish
http://www.sabah.com.tr/Cumartesi/2012/01/14/onu-nazilerin-elinden-once-schubert-sonra-turkler-kurtardi -> Weissenberg and Okonsar (in Turkish, Turkey's third greatest circulation newspaper)
http://www.salom.com.tr/newsdetails.asp?id=76879 -> Turkey's Jewish newspaper, lecture on Ernst Bloch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoffuge (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artoffuge (talk) 08:01, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:40, 8 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 02:33, 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.

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 18:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art Wash[edit]

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

Does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE. See Talk:Art Wash for why creator feels it is, and removed another editor's prod years ago. Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art Wash is not a commercial space, it is an artist-run initiative and it has a bibliography. The space is not currently working and the article is indeed a presentation of an art centre which had an important role in the art scene in Cameroon as a training centre and as promoter of the first outdoor contemporary art festival in Douala. I changed the summary to make it more clear. I do understand that it is difficult to grasp the relevance of the article and this space because the article on Douala does not present the art scene nor the article on Culture of Cameroon, there is nothing jet about the role of art workshops in Africa (a major aspect in the development of contemporary art in the African continent with a relevant and quite large academic bibliography), and there is no explanation about art education in Cameroon (at the time of the workshop there was no academy of art in the country). All those topics do have bibliography but they are not jet on Wikipedia. I wrote this article by copying a research on cultural institutions in Douala made by Giulia Paoletti (currently Ph.D. candidate at the Columbia University) and released in cc by-sa; other texts by Africultures (a well-known French publication focussed on culture in Africa) provided other references. Cameroonian press has published about the space but I had the impression that Cameroonian press might not be considered as relevant as international press so i didn't include it and i did not make a research on it. --Iopensa (talk) 14:04, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 07:41, 8 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 02:32, 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.

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. After being relisted twice, the main concern from the nom and sole delete !vote were sourcing, which have now been added to the article. Aside from that, there are no other valid deletion criteria that's been mentioned. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Japal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no independent sources. The Banner talk 12:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Represented her country at TWO notable international pageants, having won the titles in her home country. One would be sufficient for a procedural keep, two is compelling. Mabalu (talk) 10:03, 3 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added two Cayman Islands news sources quickly, i see there are others too. I only recently became aware that the Cayman Islands has a number of real news sources via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cayman Motor Museum, no doubt their wealth makes up for their smaller population on that front.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added sources appear to reach BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:17, 16 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 02:30, 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.

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 Army of the Pharaohs. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Des Devious[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. The subject lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The only notability comes from the supergroup Army of the Pharaohs and his notability is not inherited from the group. A redirect to the group would be proper. STATic message me! 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Army of the Pharaohs which is where the notability is.Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 7 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:09, 8 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 02:25, 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.

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 Army of the Pharaohs. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block McCloud[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. The subject lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The only coverage in reliable sources he has received has been a part of the group Army of the Pharaohs and notability is not inherited from the group. A redirect to the group would be proper. STATic message me! 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah man I'm not even going to argue with this. If I may, I can try adding more significant coverage on the artists solo career; e.g. more info on his releases if that will help.. or would I be wasting my time? TwinTurbo (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of in-depth reviews in professionally editing news magazines are what the article needs. If you find them, ping my talk page and I'll reverse my !vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TwinTurbo: That would be reviews/profiles of him or his solo albums, not articles about the group or their works. I do not see a significant notability of him as a solo artist to warrant the separate article. STATic message me! 05:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:26, 7 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Content
Added information from a source (The Pulse Magazine), early history of Block McCloud, and more information on his studio album The Four Walls. http://www.thepulsemag.com/wordpress/2012/09/10-12-block-mccloud
Also added this link, on more information about his ventures plus personal topics related to Block McCloud. TwinTurbo (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also are these links acceptable: http://urbankingsinc.com/now/psycho-realm/block-mccloud-of-gods-of-chaos-exclusive-interview

Keep status yet?: By the changes and improvements I have currently made on the page, does this make it more suitable for Wikipedia standards? TwinTurbo (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those are interviews, which are primary sources and not independent of the subject, alas. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the third one? TwinTurbo (talk) 09:03, 16 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 02:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the new content I have added to the page surely do make the article good enough to keep. TwinTurbo (talk) 20:48, 22 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gautier Vizioz[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. They lack significant independent coverage in reliable third party sources. Just performing as a session musician and at concerts for notable artist's does not mean said artist is notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Looks much too soon. STATic message me! 16:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)d[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:11, 8 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 02:21, 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.

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 Enchanted_(film)#Sequel. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted 2 (film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NFILM, future films are generally not notable without coverage in independent reliable sources indicating the principle photography has begun. Prod removed by anon without explanation. All material present at Enchanted_(film)#Sequel, suggest redirect to same. SummerPhD (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per guideline. I wanted to say keep on this one because it does seem like the project is going to happen. But this is clearly covered by the guideline Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films. I guess the film industry is very unpredictable. --Gccwang (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect this searchable and sourcable topic to Enchanted_(film)#Sequel just as the nominator concluded in his opening statement. Guideline and policy allow that a sourcable topic may be spoken of somewhere even when not in a separate article. Thus we may send readers to the parent topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:23, 9 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 02:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Enchanted (film)#Sequel - I'm usually lenient on stuff like this but there's no release date nor any info on filming yet, All TOOSOON. Seems better to redirect than delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. It's too soon for an entry, but it'd be reasonable enough for a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Okura[edit]

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

Promotional article on minor chain. The only possibly acceptable reference is the LA Times, and it reads like a press release. The WP article itself is just as much of a press release, and I don;t think there would be enough content for an acceptable article here. . DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, does Robert Okura's article in the LA Times ("Destiny in the desert"}read like a press release? It's a featured, Column One article about his attempt to save the town of Amboy, California. Wikipedia's own description of what an Column One article is: "One of the Times's features is "Column One," a feature that appears daily on the front page to the left-hand side. Established in September 1968, it is a place for the weird and the interesting; in the How Far Can a Piano Fly? (a compilation of Column One stories) introduction, Patt Morrison writes that the column's purpose is to elicit a "Gee, that's interesting, I didn't know that" type of reaction."

He was also featured in another LA Times article in the Region & State section about his purchase of the location of the original McDonald's in San Bernardino, started by the restaurant's namesakes -- Dick and Mac McDonald -- in 1948, "A Loving Shrine to McDonald's That McDonald's Shuns". I believe I had a citation to this story, but it's no longer in the article. Also, please note that both articles have bylines. National newspapers, like the LA Times, as a matter of policy, do not put bylines on press releases.

I also take opposition to your description of his chain of restaurants as "minor." At my count Juan Pollo has 26 locations and as a business owner of this "minor" chain, he's been featured and interviewed on Marketplace, a highly respected business radio show produced by American Public Media and carried by many public radio stations. See: Entrepreneur channels San Bernardino's history and The economy bypasses San Bernardino. Again, I believed I had these sources cited in the article, but they appear to be gone. While not all of his citations are from national media outlets, the fact that he's been included in two of them, and three of those articles (one of them on the front page of the LA Times) are specifically about him, his so-called minor chain and his work to restore Route 66.

To keep things easier to manage, here's a list of sources from national media outlets that I mentioned above:

References mentioned above
From page one, column one of the LA Times, January 17, 2007, by Mike Anton "A Loving Shrine to McDonald's That McDonald's Shuns" From the Region & State section of the LA Times, by Hugo Martin Entrepreneur channels San Bernardino's history Aired on October 18, 2012, by David Weinberg, 3:35 package The economy bypasses San Bernardino Aired on July 18, 2012, by Adriene Hill, 2:12 package

I know of few restauranteurs and business owners who can say they've had the same kind of coverage, especially in a competitive media market like Los Angeles. I also need to reiterate -- these are not press releases.DependableSkeleton79 (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and the subject has attracted independent notability. Virtually all of the references meet WP:THIRDPARTY and well exceed the recommended minimum of two. The Los Angeles Times article is clearly a Human Interest story and in no way resembles a press release.009o9 (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Until a few days ago, we had three different articles (Albert Okura, Juan Pollo, and Albert Okura: The Chicken Man with a 50 Year Plan. I redirected the latter (on a totally non-notable self-published book) to this article, so that leaves only two, but they are very redundant (the Juan Pollo article is, in fact, completely about Okura). The sourcing is basically identical, very local (yes, I know, the LA Times, but in their local section), and most of it is rather trivial (short snippets on a local radio station). I strongly doubt that there is enough sourcing for even one article, but two different articles is, without any doubt whatsoever, overdone. --Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I once again point out that Okura was profiled on the front page in column one of the LA Times ("Destiny in the desert" From page one, column one of the LA Times, January 17, 2007, by Mike Anton) and that the "short snippets" you dismiss from a "a local radio station" are in fact complete news packages coming in at least two minutes from Marketplace, a nationally syndicated public radio program. (Entrepreneur channels San Bernardino's history Aired on October 18, 2012, by David Weinberg, 3:35 package, The economy bypasses San Bernardino Aired on July 18, 2012, by Adriene Hill, 2:12 package)).) First the sources -- including the LA Times front page story -- are dismissed as all being press releases and now the media sources are being dismissed despite my explanation of the relevance and national reach of the programming. DependableSkeleton79 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It has been covered by RandKitty already, but I will say this - the coverage cited falls under WP:Routine and because of it the article does not meet the standards of inclusion. The argument made DependableSkeleton relies on the mistaken belief that because the source is reliable, the material cited to it is automatically reliable as well. that is not the case. Many of these sources are biographical fluff pieces that do not meet the same editorial standards as news pieces, as such they should be discounted. Other sources fall under WP:Significant - they are not about the individual himself, but are about an other subject in which he chimes in or is mentioned and as such the do not establish anything beyond WP:Verifiability. These things taken together mean that the article falls short of the standards of inclusion. As I also understand it, WP:BLP requires substantially more than these types of sources as well for these type of articles. (I do not work in too many biographies, so my knowledge of them is rudimentary at best.)--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the purchase of a town (in this case, Amboy, California "Destiny in the desert"), routine? If it's "puffery", why did the editors of the LA Times decide it was worthy of front page, column one coverage -- which is a fact that I'm finding strange that it's constantly ignored, despite Wikipedia's own entry on the LA Times describing what a "column one" story is. How is the purchase of the original McDonald's -- which was founded by the original McDonald's brothers ("A Loving Shrine to McDonald's That McDonald's Shuns") -- "routine"? From what I've read of WP:Routine, neither of these stories can be classified as such. DependableSkeleton79 (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going through this page, I believe that I may not have established Albert Okura's notability in the introduction. I've drafted a new introduction (please note that I have not posted it). I believe this will clearly establish his contributions preserve the history of California.

Albert Okura is the founder and CEO of the Juan Pollo restaurant chain in Southern California. He is also a philanthropist and is active in the revitalization of Historic Route 66.[55] In 2005, Okura purchased the town of Amboy, California, which is located along Route 66.[56][57] The corporate headquarters for the Juan Pollo chain now sits on the original location of the first McDonald's restaurant.[58][59][60] DependableSkeleton79 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources are sufficient to establish him as notable. The section about the town of Amboy could be expanded. The article Juan Pollo should be redirected to this article since he is more notable than the chain is, and the Juan Pollo article is mostly about him anyway. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 15 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 02:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the Route 66 effort and the purchase of the town well before I encountered the article. The proposed new lead (above) would pull the article together nicely. I'm still a ~~Keep~~ vote. 009o9 (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has three sources that are primarily about Albert Okura:
1. "The Chicken Man with the 50 Year Plan: Albert Okura and Fast Food History". KCET.org. Retrieved August 24, 2014.
2. "A man with a plan". The San Bernardino Sun. Retrieved August 24, 2014.
3. "A look at Juan Pollo founder Albert Okura's success, big dreams". San Bernadino Sun. Retrieved August 24, 2014.
Albert Okura passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the KCET and The San Bernardino Sun sources, this article from the Los Angeles Times and this report from Marketplace (radio program) also provide substantial coverage of the subject. He clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:06, 22 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and Marisa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Low profile fringe pop performers claiming notability by contagion (opened for notable acts). See WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Orange Mike | Talk 02:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Moved here from talk page of AfD - This page has not been updated in years and needs to be. It will updated properly. New information regarding this duo demonstrates that they are a viable pop/adult contemporary duo with enough celebrity to warrant their page. New substantial information: Michael and Marisa have been written up in Billboard Magazine, on CNN.com, Huffington Post, AOL, in Parent's Magazine, J-14 magazine, and many others. Checking on google will confirm. Their anti-bullying music is part of the school curriculum of many schools across the U.S. and they are spokespeople for PACER which is described on the Wikipedia Unity Day page as a renowned anti bullying organization based in Minneapolis endorsed by Ellen Degeneres. Michael and Marisa are releasing their third album of original music written with some of the most renowned producers in music who have volunteered to co-write and produce with them. They have won major songwriting awards from a Nashville based organization (19,000+ international entries and Michael and Marisa honorable mention). Last month they were they opened all across the U.S.on the national tour of the band "Rixton" (see Wikepedia page), who is a platinum artist with a #14 song on pop radio and #1 in the U.K. Next month they are opening for Demi Lovato (X-Factor Judge, Top 40 artist, actress etc. see Wikipedia page). When doing appearances thousands of high school and college kids line up for meet and greets in cities across the U.S. Bottom line is that Michael and Marisa are celebrities that warrant a Wikipedia page, however the page needs to be updated properly with current information that shows that. Childish references like playing with Legos need to be replaced with references to being written up in Billboard Magazine, a respected magazine for the music industry. I will make sure that the page is properly updated. Michael and Marisa have had a wikipedia page since 2009 and have done 300 shows nationwide at viable venues such as the Bamboozle Tour, Six Flags Amusement Park Arenas, Whisky-a-Go-Go, Roxy, Lincoln Center, Webster Hall, NY and 100's of others. They have also done a lot of philanthropic work. In addition to PACER mentioned above, most recently they have been active with A Beautiful Life Foundation which was established to stream music into Children's Hospitals across the country. They have also held fundraising concerts for Toys for Tots and Doug Flutie's Autism charity and last month donated a concert as part of Ecofest held at Times Square in New York City. Sorry for the length of this. Trying to show that Michael and Marisa are substantial enough to warrant their page. Looking for support not to delete the page. Googling Michael and Marisa will confirm. Press is posted on their website Michaelandmarisa.com as well as info. on the producers involved. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinheadduffey (talk • contribs) — Pinheadduffey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please see these articles below including Huffington Post, CNN, PBS Kids, Parents magazine, Billboard Magazine for the trade and the various others about Michael and Marisa. After all the on line links there is a link to newspaper press.

-The duo has an album they wrote produced by major producers about to be released to the radio (Jonas Brothers co-wrote). -Duo just toured the U.S. with platinum top 40 artist "Rixton" and was their concert opener -Duo will be touring as opener for Demi Lovato later this month.

Billboard Magazine:

http://michaelandmarisa.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/were-in-billboard-magazine/

Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/vazquez-sounds-8-teen-sib_n_1121394.html (Michael and Marisa are second. Click arrow to the right)

CNN:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-500234

J14 Magazine:

http://www.j-14.com/posts/exclusive-q-a-with-michael-and-marisa-2435

Parent's Magazine:

http://www.parents.com/blogs/goodyblog/tag/michael-and-marisa/

PBSKids

http://pbskids.org/itsmylife/blog/2010/07/michael-and-marisa.html

Stardoll (Celebrities have dolls and users dress them up):

http://www.stardoll.com/en/dolls/1638/Michael_and_Marisa.html

Ocean Up:

http://oceanup.com/2011/01/29/michael-marisa-the-same-anti-bullying/#.VBBiGBa4lHg

Commonsensemedia.org:

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/music-reviews/kickin-it-together

Twist Magazine:

http://www.twistmagazine.com/posts/check-out-michael-and-marisa-s-new-music-video-7375

Tangled Ball/PACER:

http://tangledball.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-we-can-learn-from-pacer-great.html

Mindful of Music:

http://mindfulofmusic.blogspot.com/2011/10/interview-with-michael-and-marisa.html

OpEd News:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Boston-s-Michael-and-Maris-by-Patricia-Duffey-110202-336.html

Relate Magazine:

http://www.relatemag.com/2010/08/pop-with-a-rock-edge-singers-michael-and-marisa/

Stars2come:

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/music-reviews/kickin-it-together

Kidzworld:

http://www.kidzworld.com/article/15541-michael-and-marisa-interview

Newspaper Articles/Press:

http://michaelandmarisa.com/press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.152.255 (talk) 00:21, 12 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 02:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original Message-----

From: James Cummins <jc@wikiexperts.us> To: Sent: Wed, Sep 10, 2014 9:47 am Subject: Response to your inquiry about visibility in Wikipedia

Dear

Thank you for considering WikiExperts! In order to determine if you qualify for a Wikipedia profile, can you please send us 7-10 examples of substantial press coverage you have received over your career (not including press releases), which have not already appeared on the page? These kinds of references are required for any new entry to stay up on the site.

Best regards,

James Cummins COO, WikiExperts.us JC@WikiExperts.us (917) 725-2030 Skype: jc.wikiexpert

Dear James,

Many thanks for your response. Here are the articles you requested about Michael and Marisa. After all the on line links there is a link to newspaper press. Please let me know what other information you need so that the page is not deleted. The duo has an album they wrote about to be released (Jonas Brothers co-wrote a song), just toured the U.S. with platinum top 40 artist "Rixton" as their concert opener, and will be touring as opener for Demi Lovato later this month. I appreciate whatever you can communicate at Wikipedia so that the Michael and Marisa page stays active as it has been since 2009. It definitely needs updating and I will make sure that happens. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.152.255 (talk) 00:21, 12 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 02:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – sources do not show that the subject has received WP:Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The involvement of WikiExperts, a banned paid-editing firm, also raises red-flags as to notability and WP:COI--Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~"STRONG KEEP"~~ - notability demonstrated through coverage in many reliable sources. viable performance history. significant contribution to anti-bullying --Pinheadduffey 12:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)— Pinheadduffey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and it been created in violation of the ban by the Community on WikiExperts and speedy deletion under WP:G5 may be applicable .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Turns out I nominated this for deletion back in 2009 (!) and it's still apparently not notable. The level of claimed notability above simply does not match what sources exist about the duo. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mattel Toys has a line of dolls called: “I Can Be….”. The dolls have different occupations such as doctor, pilot, veterinarian etc. Marisa was asked by Mattel to represent the line as the “I Can Be….a Drummer.” Here is the link to the video that Mattel made and put on their web site. There was a video for each occupation on the site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvaIpKUsSc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.152.255 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa is endorsed by Vic Firth (drum stick co.)

Michael and Marisa were openers on many Rixton tour dates in August 2014. Rixton is the opener for Ariana Grande’s 2015 tour beginning in February. Ariana Grande is one of the top artists in the U.S., if not the world right now. She opened up the Video Music Awards six weeks ago and has several top ten songs on the radio right now. In other words, Rixton is a big deal and they wouldn’t have Michael and Marisa opening for them if the duo weren’t very significant in the entertainment business. Michael and Marisa have spent the last two years writing and recording a CD and played the songs from it on this tour. No covers. Their set was 25 minutes each night. They play drums, guitar, bass guitar, ukelele and keyboards and sing without any backup players on the stage, just the duo. Rixton, Ariana Grande and Justin Bieber all have the same management that approved Michael and Marisa as an opener on the Rixton tour. Here is the link to footage of it with Michael and Marisa at El Rey Theatre in Los Angeles a hugely reputable place. Here’s another link to a review of the Rixton and Michael and Marisa performances which compares Michael to Michael Buble and Marisa to Colbie Caillat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLcD-QHxRQ8

http://techtonicpop.com/2014/08/michael-and-marisa-rixton/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.152.255 (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More links showing international recognition and that duo is viable Wikipedia subject:

Video LIsting on IMDB:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2069853/

Popstar Magazine:

http://www.popstaronline.com/tag/michael-and-marisa/

Pens Eye View:

http://www.penseyeview.com/content/michael-marisa

PACER:

http://www.pacer.org/bullying/video/player.asp?video=46

Kids Music:

http://en.kidsmusic.info/artists/michael-and-marisa

Dear Bully:

http://dearbully.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/michael-marisa-the-same/

School posting "The Same" lyrics for their school:

http://moodle2.wythe.k12.va.us/mod/url/view.php?id=1242

Modoration:

http://modoration.com/tag/michael-and-marisa/

M Magazine:

http://www.m-magazine.com/posts/new-group-to-watch-meet-m-fave-michael-marisa-12068

Twist Magazine:

http://www.twistmagazine.com/posts/check-out-michael-and-marisa-s-new-music-video-7375

The Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2009/08/14/teen_duo_michael__marisa_are_not_kidding_around/

J-!4 Magazine:

http://www.j-14.com/tags/michael-and-marisa-2826

The chords to a Michael and Marisa song listed on Ultimate-guitar.com:

http://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/m/michael_and_marisa/beautiful_comeback_crd.htm

The chords to a MIchael and Marisa song listed on Guitar Tab:

http://www.guitaretab.com/m/michael-and-marisa/

Michael and Marisa mentioned on sites in other countries: Their reach is worldwide including Australia, Middle East, Europe, South America, Far East:

French: http://www.vagalume.com.br/michael-and-marisa/

Russian: http://www.amalgama-lab.com/songs/m/michael_and_marisa/the_same.html

Justine Magazine:

http://www.primarywavemusic.com/news/post/MTgwLWQwYTgxNQ/

Relate Magazine:

http://www.relatemag.com/2010/08/pop-with-a-rock-edge-singers-michael-and-marisa/

In CD Compiltation for Project Believe in Me, Nat'l Charitable Org:

http://holdonanotherday.bandcamp.com/track/beautiful-comeback

Review - New York City:

http://www.perpetualtoxins.com/100717-mam.shtml

The Star Scoop:

http://www.thestarscoop.com/music/michael-and-marisa-interview-if-kids-tell-kids-its-more-powerful/

Ticketfly.com:

http://www.ticketfly.com/event/591253-rixton-seattle/

Lyric Site listing songs:

http://www.lyrster.com/songs-lyrics/michael-and-marisa-the-same.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.152.255 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patch Game company made over 70.000 games with three different Michael and Marisa song titles and enclosed in the game a CD with the song matching the title of the game or a download card with the song.

Sex Industry Network (SIN)[edit]

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

Entirely promotional article with no references, much of it seems copied from their web site. (tho not in the article, there is what reads to me like a press-release based news item about it gh here . DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is both a significant health organisation in South Australia, and the peak sex worker peer lobby in a state which has a well-publicised and long-running battle over sex work law reform. They come up in the media at least once a week - of which the article cited by DGG is just one example. There's absolutely no basis to call that a "press release" - they get interviewed a lot because they're a key player in a political battle that's generating a lot of media attention (and has every other time sex work law has gotten back in the news for the last 20 years). While the present state of the article is no good, AfD is not cleanup. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 8 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 01:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal coverage in sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree about the fact that it is important. From my pov, it is important for public health reason. There is a discussion going on on the talk page on how to make it less like a PR brochure. but I think someone who is a better writer than I am has to clean it up. Postcard Cathy (talk)

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. Taking no heed in the bad faith accusation - the deletion concerns were notability and lack of evidence thereof which have been addressed and added to the article significantly improving it. With no other deletion concerns left unspoken for, the consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Marshall[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, Only stuff I've found is Facebook related which isn't good enough. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nominator is making a bad faith, wholesale attempt to remove Miss Universe contestants. Each of them has achieved two events, their National win and their participation in the heavily media covered Miss Universe pageant. All of these Noms should be rejected now and the nominator The Banner should be banned from making such nominations in the future. After I'm through locating the damage this user is trying to do, I'll try to come back to add more sources, sources I know exist because they exist for all contestants of this worldwide televised, publicized event. Trackinfo (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please stop with your personal attacks? The Banner talk 10:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should stop accusing anybody of bad faith actions here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:Before as a guideline, ignored by this nominator on dozens of such articles. It is not rocket science to google each of these names. Major American Newspapers, otherwise known as WP:RS are doing coverage of each contestant. There is also a ton of gossip chatter. To say there is nothing but Facebook is a misrepresentation of the facts. The worldwide pageant is nothing but a publicity event centered around these contestants. For that one week, they are celebrities. For a different period of time, each of them is a national celebrity in their homeland winning the national pageant. What completely irks me is I have to spend hours of my time rescuing each of these articles separately, getting deep in a subject I care little about, because this one Nominator has spread damage in little pieces, instead of taking this subject as a whole and making one reasonable discussion. Search, copy, paste. This could have been avoided with a little effort on the part of the Nom, but apparently removing content (justified or not) from wikipedia is more important. That is bad faith. Wikipedia does not prosper with editors like this. Trackinfo (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your dispute is, I believe, you could employ better wording. Maybe you could still ponder striking 2 or 3 words from your previous talk. That is all from me. Bye. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The story is coming clearer. I have now discovered there is an ongoing discussion about this subject at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Beauty pageant contestants. The nominator first participated in that discussion on September 3. This nomination was made on September 8, without associating it to the discussion, in order to sneakily try to get a deletion to make a WP:POINT. Trackinfo (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my friend, you are making a WP:POINT by accusing me of all kinds of bad things. Just admit that you don't like my nominations and that you prefer personal attacks above arguments.. Despite what ever happened, I am still not convinced about her notability as notability is never inherited. The Banner talk 15:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banner, that you have made so many AfD nominations of beauty contestant articles, none of which appears headed anywhere near deletion, suggests an anti-beauty contestant POV, and looks reckless in not doing required preparation steps as per WP:BEFORE.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Noms may not be bad faith; but they are bad.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples: [61], [62], [63], [64]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's certainly notable in her country.SBaker43 (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Northamerica1000 and SBaker43 and Trackinfo. Still puzzling why Banner keeps rapid-fire nominating clearly notable beauty contestant articles without doing WP:BEFORE.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 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. enough material seems to have been found. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lyn Nelson[edit]

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

No evidence for notability as an artist. WP:CREATIVE requires work in permanent collection of a major museum, not temporary display. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article by undeclared paid editor violates Terms of Use [65]. Logical Cowboy (talk)

Comment A few years ago, I rescued Vladimir Kush, possibly the closest type of artist to Nelson on Wikipedia (AFD here), but I was able to find sufficient independent sources covering not only him but his works in some depth. This is not the case with Nelson. None of the current references in the article are independent of the subject and what I could find in addition to that hardly justifies his inclusion under WP:BASIC:

"Painter Dives into 'Two Worlds' of the Oceans", Washington Times (March 31, 2001) verifies the Smithsonian exhibition. However, it is obviously press-release based, and the more prestigious Washington Post had nothing to say about him or his art.
This one is from his hometown newspaper (Inland Valley Daily Bulletin) about him getting some award from the Ontario, California City Council.
This one on 10 successful small business entrepreneurs in Hawaii (with one paragraph devoted to Nelson) in Hawaii Business (February 1994) is perhaps the best of the lot but quite revealing:

"The result of his mid-day musings is today a $5 million art and publishing company known as Robert Lyn Nelson Studios, and one of the most widely recognized and profitable schools of popular art to come out of Hawaii. Nelson uses aggressive marketing—including infomercials and advertorials on Maui's visitor channels, ads in about a dozen print publications and on radio stations, and even a short documentary about his work and philosophies—to create demand for his paintings."

I imagine a paid-for article on Wikipedia was the next step. Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find a few third-party articles. This one is about his collaboration with a non-profit, Pacific Whale Foundation [66], and the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation [67]. These are collaborations, probably based on fund-raising, and the organizations are not art experts. Everything else I found was directly sales-related. I think this is a delete. LaMona (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I to was able to find an additional article [68], his art having been commercialized as puzzles (one of which is here [69] and even that his name has been trademarked [70]. I believe he's notable, but it's tough to see enough reliable sources to make it NPOV. The fact that he uses aggressive marketing can't be held against him, it just makes it harder to find neutral stuff to use as a source. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 19:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 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, Tawker (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after 9 days at AfD, this BLP is still unsourced. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and clean up, though I can understand why the article has got peoples' backs up and suggests overt promotion. The nomination is misguided, plain and simple, having work in permanent public collections is only one of the possible alternative notability criteria for artists and creative types. Nelson clearly had a major solo exhibition, prominently reported, at the Smithsonian, so his claim to be the youngest person to have a solo exhibition seems plausible. There's other coverage available via Highbeam, e.g. Hawaii Business (1994), Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Ontario (2006), clearly suggesting he meets WP:GNG. [Edit: I see Voceditenore has already spotted these articles. It makes Bearian's claim there are no sources slightly at odds. I've changed to Weak keep, on the basis I mistook the Washington Times for the Washington Post] Sionk (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as much as it pains me. This was clearly a paid-for article created and edited by this sock farm who caused a huge amount of editor time cleaning up the blatant promotionalism which they repeatedly added to the article. However, what pushed me over to a "weak keep" was this reference, which I have just added:

Perrin, William F.; Wursig, Bernd; Thewissen, J. G.M. (eds.) (2009). "Popular Culture and Literature", p. 907. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, 2nd edition. Academic Press. ISBN 0080919936

This has a half-page colour reproduction of his Two Worlds painting and describes him as "a prominent figure in the marine art world." The article is now in a relatively acceptable state, but will need to be continually watched for further attempts at turning it into yet another of Nelson's advertorials. Voceditenore (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Of note is that the article is no longer an unsourced BLP.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply, not a notable artist. Temporary displays at small museums does not apply as being notable. It doesn't help that the article is an orphan as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added by Voceditenore and Sionk push article above the line for WP:GNG. Looking in Newspapers.com, I see that he is listed in several newspaper TV program guides for an episode TNN's Outdoor Celebrities with the episode title "Marine artist Robert Lyn Nelson goes whale watching off the coat of Maui". This suggests that his notability may go back over 25 years. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:36, 24 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Marcel[edit]

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

singer songwriter with a mixtape and a single. doesnt meet notability for musicians by a long shot, doesnt inherit notability from Saadiq. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayomsskiver (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as far I read: He fullfills at least 4 of the criteria needed to meet notability. 1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

   This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
       Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]
       Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
       Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

2) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.[note 4] Single 2AM charted st 104 on the pop and 29 on the RnB chart mentioned on Sage the Gemini's page - see citation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sage_the_Gemini

12) Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

4) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 5]

Proof: Tour with Keyisha Cole: http://thefillmore.com/ai1ec_event/keyshia-cole/?instance_id= http://thesource.com/2014/08/14/exclusive-adrian-marcel-talks-new-music-touring-with-keyshia-cole-raphael-saadiq-more/

Coverage including interviews and media coverage: Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/10-new-artists-you-need-to-know-june-2014-20140619/adrian-marcel-0243358

All Access hot97: http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/133483/hot-97-who-s-next-live-set-for-sept-25th http://www.thisisrnb.com/tag/adrian-marcel/

Allmusic.com: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/adrian-marcel-mn0003120458

Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6157713/adrian-marcel-weak-after-next-exclusive-mixtape-stream

MTV: http://www.mtv.com/artists/adrian-marcel/

FuseTV: http://www.fuse.tv/videos/2014/07/trending-10-adrian-marcel-interview

Power 105.1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWbj98Pm3Ps

Republic Records Artist: http://www.republicrecords.com/artists/adrian-marcel/

The article was requested here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music/Performers,_bands_and_songwriters

Swaysuniverse: http://swaysuniverse.com/celebrityinterviews/adrian-marcel-on-touring-w-keyshia-cole-why-he-wont-reveal-his-race-women-performs-live-in-studio

Musictimes.com http://www.musictimes.com/articles/7663/20140717/adrian-marcel-releases-weak-after-next-mixtape-listen.htm

Last.fm http://www.last.fm/music/Adrian+Marcel

BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/5caffb40-fbc9-49c1-a349-e4901262d8fc

BET: http://www.bet.com/topics/a/adrian-marcel.html

GRAMMYS: http://www.grammy.com/news/adrian-marcel-is-bringing-the-blues-back-to-rb

Oakland Local: http://oaklandlocal.com/2013/05/oakulture-adrian-marcel-returns-to-rbs-roots-crimes-of-police-touches-on-police-misconduct-estria-foundation-kickstarts-battle-campaign/

RowlingOut: http://rollingout.com/music/artist-interviews/singer-adrian-marcel-exhibits-new-school-attitude-old-school-artistry/

Murcurynews: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23317141/adrian-marcel-hits-right-tune-grammy-award-winner I think it's clear that the artist is relevent/notable enough for a wikipedia page. Especially since it's been requested, more information and links on the artist will be added in due time. If that's not enough, there is more.

(talk) 21:32, 16 September 2014

Keep. Clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO, has been significantly covered in reliable sources and his debut single charted on multiple Billboard charts. Apparent disregard of WP:BEFORE by nominator. STATic message me! 23:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nominator appears not to have, either researched the topic or regarded the criteria of notability. This shouldn't have been nominated for deletion. It was written here as a requested article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music/Performers,_bands_and_songwriters And I think the links above support the need for an article creation.

Update:

There are such things as article stubs on Wikipedia as far as I have seen. If the information was deemed to little it could stubbing an article would have made more sense. This is an open encylopedia subject to change it's normal to assume the addition of information. Generally articles on new artists tend to be smaller because they are about a NEW ARTIST, the information on the artist is still rolling out, I've seen this happen countless times on this website. The nominator admitted that no research was done before the article was selected for deletion. That's poor practice. If more information is needed then articles should be nominated for more information to be added not for deletion. The unanimous opinion is the error was predominately on the part of the nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugochinyerem (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ugochinyerem User talk:Ugochinyerem 07:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination, while most of the above links dont show notability, he does have at least minimal coverage, including a major news outlet and a music site, so he qualifies with one of the criteria at notability for musicians, despite pretty much only having a mixtape to his name. i added one ref. just having a request at article creation doesnt mean a subject deserves an article. my mistake was in assuming that the article creator (likely a fan so highly motivated in principle to do this right) made an effort to write an article showing notability. they didnt, obviously, but now maybe someone can rewrite it and add some refs, and not abandon it. yes, i didnt do a search. thats an error on my part. but, its also an error to start an article on a living person and not show notability from the get go. no one should just assume an article will write itself. I know this is not the forum for this, but this project is in deep trouble with all the extremely poorly written, overly promotional articles on marginally notable people. when i create an article, i find at least enough to clearly demonstrate notability, and dont assume others have to.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nominator is oblivious to the fact that his debut single has charted on major Billboard charts and gets strong radio play. 104 on Hot 100 and 29 on R&B/Hip Hop. Obviously nominated it solely because he didn't know who the artist was. BlaccCrab (talk) 16:51, 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Enzo[edit]

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

Alleged South American network run by Fox International Channels which is just a poorly done copy of Fox Life, down to the alleged Fox Enzo logo just being an MS Paint'ed image with system font Times New Roman 'enzo' taking the place of "Life". Also, I doubt a major company like 21st Century Fox has their web budget so low their one-page website has to be hosted on WIX. Thinking this network isn't real (not even considering the massive copyright lawsuit that would be laid down by Ferrari for using the Enzo trademark); outside of Wiki mirrors, only sites with usernames consisting of 'Fox' and/or 'Enzo' were found. Nate • (chatter) 04:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 8 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 20:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Conducting a Google search I would have to agree that this channel isn't real. Forbesy 777 (talk) 01:08, 22 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. The clear consensus is keep after two reslists - discussions about the possibility of merging can be taken up on the articles talk page (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TV3 News @ 6[edit]

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

Non-notable former news program Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I am also nominating thes related pages because they are also non-notable former news programs from the same TV network. Like TV3 News @ 6, they only have 1 reference:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 30 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, czar ♔ 05:57, 8 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 20:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing improvements are certainly needed, but a nationally distributed news program on a national network in a sovereign country passes WP:NMEDIA right on its face. Flag for reference improvements but keep — or, alternatively, merge the articles into a longer and probably more easily referenceable omnibus article about the network's news division. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By the program's nature, as @Bearcat says, it meets notability because it was the main news flagship for a national TV channel. The fact that it is a poor article is grounds to add it to articles that need improving, not for deletion. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:14, 23 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 no consensus. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GIRCA[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been tagge for notability for over six years, unresolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search on the full name of the organisation (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) easily finds more than sufficient sources for notability - however, all of them seem to relate to the eventually unsuccessful court case against IBM mentioned in the article. This suggests that the article either needs to be moved and rewritten (with further sources) to be specifically about the court case or merged to a related article. PWilkinson (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article in the Historical Dictionary of Human Rights is framed as an article on GIRCA. James500 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the level of coverage the case has received, this article should not be deleted. James500 (talk) 18:25, 5 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, czar ♔ 05:57, 8 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) @ 20:00, 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yau wing kwong[edit]

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

very local official, equivalent of a member of a district zoningboard in an American city. Apparently a businessman, but I see no notabiity there either. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BEFORE B6: zh:邱榮光. Also looks more prospective to refocus to being an environmentalist, as that is what his majority of publication is about. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Additional Chinese "Find sources" template added 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:58, 8 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 19:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the Google translation of the Chinese article. Though it is perhaps difficult to equate positions in one government with those in another, I am not convinced the accomplishments there are substantial. The references do not seem what we would consider adequate: one is a link to another WP article, 2 are election returns of "the 102 people elected district commissioners", one a link to his organization's home page, and the 5th to a page about him on a ecotourism site. None of these is the sort of 3rd party substantial sources we use for notability, such as an article about him in a major publication. I do recognize that I do not have the language knowledge to search for one in the likely places, but I have to assume that had there been one, it would have been given in the zhWP article. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 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. No evidence of notability has been provided by the "Keep" commenters - "there's stuff on Google" simply isn't helpful. Reliable sources need to be identified. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ekta Batra[edit]

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

From what I can tell it is a local news person for a news station. Wgolf (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simple Google Search is giving sufficient results to prove notability. CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:27, 9 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there's also plenty of coverage in Google News. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment-well the article made me think it was just some local news coverage was the thing, also sometimes it is hard finding people from India on Google you know. Wgolf (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that hard Wgolf... –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I perhaps should've looked at what I linked more closely as as Dusti pointed out they're all from one website .... Anyway not much evidence of notability beyond one minor website. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see significant coverage in reliable sources. Passes notabillity. Remember Wgolf, Google news not totally index Indian online news sites, so don't depend on Google news when the subject is from India. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-yeah I know I was replying to the comment on how a simple google search works. Wgolf (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I also wonder why Dwaipayanc still thinks that Ekta Batra is still not notable?? This should be closed as SK #1 if Dwaipayan judge the article again. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. - A normal close as "keep" will also do the work since the Afd is more than 7 days old and rough consensus has also been reached. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

still delete. The Google and Google news hits merely mention her name as the host of some news programs. She is not the subject of independent articles. I don't see any significant awards either. Those gogle hits do not prove notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately I'm going to have to side with @Dwaipayan: here. Using the news search that Davey2010 showed, I originally thought that it was a quick "Keep", however, they're all from a single source. This shows a more accurate view. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:08, 23 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of revolution[edit]

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

Contested PROD -- this article was directly translated from the Russian Wikipedia. I can find very little about this book, nobody has added any sources -- this article has been completely untouched. If we could find and add sources then maybe the article could be saved, but that seems unlikely now. I would note that there has been a discussion of merging this into Pitirim Sorokin, but it seems that the discussion stalled from the start. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete my article "Sociology of Revolution", that you won't have any information about contents of this great book in English Wikipedia. This subject is of great importance today, the new example of revolution is a modern revolution and civil war in Ukraine.Valery Staricov (talk) 15:00, 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 19:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to add a statement of the following secondary sources in the my article " Sociology of Revolution ", but it need to give me time (1 month) for this purpose. 1. The Working of Revolution/ Review) by Wilbur Cortez Abbott, p. 664 2. Revolution and Patriotism/ (3 Reviews) by Clarence H. Gaines, pp. 757-762 The Sociology of Revolution, by Pitirim A. Sorokin, ...The Sociology of Revolution, by Pitirim A. Sorokin

http://www.unz.org/Pub/SorokinPitirim-1925

Valery Staricov (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major book for famous author. I see the Russian article has additional sources that should be added (btw, I added the interwiki link to it) Articles on seminal works of this sort should be encouraged. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My problem consists that I have the Russian sources but I have no references to texts of English-speaking sources. It need to find and point to me to links of text of the following book which I will be able to download or see free of charge:

1. Pitirim Sorokin " Sociology of revolution".

Valery Staricov (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add the Russian sources you used to create the article. We don't require English-based sources and the Russian sources may help to establish notability. --Mark viking (talk) 18:06, 23 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.