< 1 September	3 September >

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Razvan Stoica[edit]

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

I see no indication that this individual may be notable, as that term is defined by WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, WP:GNG and similar related policies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. No indicatinos of notability Only reference link is the personal website. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plenty of claims to notability but absolutely no Ghits at all. If this person were notable, there should be something out there. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Not to be confused with a footballer of the same name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Kudpung already noted. No WP:GOOGLEHITS. Fails GNG & WP:MUSICBIO. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Radovac[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that the Bosnian top flight is fully pro. An assertion refuted by sources listed at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL as noted by GiantSnowman. —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not played in a WP:FPL. Fails WP:NFOOTY & WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:57, 7 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) 11:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal vs. Dominator[edit]

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

Unotable film that was apparently only released online from the look of it. Wgolf (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete consider speedy. Non-notable film. Only info I could find on google was a link to the myspace page where this film was "released" —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* of note, the creator of the page is really the only one to have done any edits other than some bots/tagging. Creators talk page is interesting, given h/o distruptive edits and getting blocked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faster2010#Blocked). (not that this info necessarily means anything in terms of notability of the "film") —Gaff ^ταλκ 00:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not speedy as it exists and can be watched, but delete for failing to have coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Only myspace and some unreliable sources found. Fails WP:NFILMS. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Varvynets[edit]

Withdrawing nomination as I am now convinced that the subject passes WP:GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No direct claim to significance, but apparently won some big-time awards. Article is one line. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bronze at the European Biathlon Championship. Three interwikies. NickSt (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. Have got award. "One line article" is not a valid reason for deletion. It can be expanded by translating from other language Wikies. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia has enough content for expansion. See this. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:10, 7 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-administrator closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You Took Advantage of Me[edit]

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

Six years with unresolved notability. Non-notable song. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An American song standard; the long list of covers set forth in the article (from Bing Crosby to Linda Ronstadt) should be enough to demonstrate the song's lasting notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Arxiloxos. Listed as a popular hit in hundreds of newspaper articles. Here are a few- Different, but Only Like Ham and Eggs The Brooklyn Daily Eagle , 14 June 1942 , Rodgers and Hart are rediscovered Kokomo Tribune, 3 December 1995 , Photographic Music Introduced Big Spring Daily Herald, 14 May 1933 , Many Hit Songs in Babes in Arms Ottawa Journa, 11 March 1961 - via Newspapers.com - NQ talk 00:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per NQ. One of the enduring classics of 20th-century popular music. There are numerous academic references available. The sheer number of notable artists to have recorded this song should have been proof of its notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- consider "Speedy Keep" or at least Snowball for early closure. see above for reasons. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 5 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victor A.(Beaude) Sahm III[edit]

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

This was a draft declined at WP:AFC because the gentleman lacked any asserted or proven notability. The article was, nonetheless, moved to main namespace, despite the purported references being regurgitated press releases and PR material, plus a load of patents. Patents are not references. There is nothing independent of Sahm, nor significant coverage which is about Sahm, and in WP:RS Fiddle Faddle 22:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is pure undiluted WP:Vanispamcruftisement. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Roger Gbawden (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longnan Railway Station[edit]

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

Unresolved notability since 2008. Unverified since early 2013. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easy to verify [1][2] (gmaps seem to have their text-satellite alignment a little off). The WP community wisely decided a long time ago that all rail stations are considered notable (see WP:OUTCOMES) as it prevents the it from having to tirelessly scrutinize the viability of the tens of thousands of rail station articles when editors time is much better spent improving existing articles or creating new ones as well as improving an amicable working relationship with each other.--Oakshade (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about stations in WP:OUTCOMES, all WP:RAILOUTCOMES says is that "subway and railway lines often survive AfD" 109.76.249.184 (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has long been considered on Wikipedia that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAILOUTCOMES or WP:RAILSTATION, although such articles on Chinese wiki rarely survive AfD.-180.172.239.231 (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added one reference and there are others out there. The majority of Chinese railway stations are like wallpaper to the people who live there so they are not written about a great deal, other than in timetables and travel guides. The references are all going to be in Chinese, which doesn't disqualify them, per the General Notabiity Guideline—what does matter is that we are not systematically biased against any one demographic group. If we start deleting Chinese railway stations, which have always been presumed notable, albeit borderline, then this must be the first (as Oakshade says) of 10,000s of similar AfD's right across the globe for similar small stations—otherwise we are not applying policy equanaminously. Do we really want to waste thousands of hours of productive editing time on such an exercise? Philg88 ^♦talk 16:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beijing–Kowloon Railway per Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). "If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) [about a train station] can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all" All refs provided by the keep side are purely directory-style infomation. eg. timetables etc, and I haven't found anything better. 109.76.249.184 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — 109.76.249.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As I have been accused of being an SPA, I will disclose IPs I've edited under recently (there may be others): 109.77.247.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 109.79.81.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 109.77.247.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). These demonstrate activity in AfDs outside of this topic. I expect the tag to be removed. 109.76.249.184 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So on your 5-day long history on Wikipedia, you've contributed to a total of 4 other topics with various IPs.--Oakshade (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) is simply an essay an an opinion of a few writers and doesn't represent long-standing community consensus.--Oakshade (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." That sounds like inherent notability for me. We have similar expression when we consider notability of named natural features or NRHP listed buildings.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've edited before, since 2010. I have been away from Wikipedia for over a year, I am Editing while logged out for a legitimate reason, and my account is in good standing. My account has not been active in rail topics or rail AfDs. Besides all of this, the IP contribs I have linked show activity in a diverse range of AfDs, therefore lacking the "single" part of "single-purpose account". I'm going to ask you again to remove the tag.

Sorry, just four other topics is on the cusp of "few". If you've been editing since 2010, what is your user name?--Oakshade (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to reveal that except to a trusted admin or checkuser via email. Linking a username with an IP is risky. If you want, you can nominate an admin who we both can trust, and they can verify what I said. 109.76.249.184 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that page is an essay, but I don't see policy or guidelines supporting your point of view. I happen to be of the opinion that that page is more representative of my views on WP:N than, say, WP:RAILSTATION (also an essay).109.76.249.184 (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community WP:CONSENSUS (long-standing at that) and WP:COMMONSENSE which trumps that essay.--Oakshade (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus set down where? Where is the RfC or other discussion where that consensus was decided? 109.76.249.184 (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Transportation/archive Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes/Archive_2#Transportation--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community consensus is set down by a decade of the community not deleting rail station articles. You don't need an RfC to show consensus is established. The main determination of WP:CONSENSUS is through regular editing. In this case, the regular editing over a decade with perhaps hundreds of rail station AfDs and every time the community decided to keep them. That's a true gauge of consensus. Even the AfD example in that discussion you pointed to, the community decided to keep that rail station article. It's a very wise decision. Otherwise there will be literally thousands of discussions like this. The community doesn't want that. --Oakshade (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're here to build an encyclopedia. Spending otherwise productive editing time on interminable AfDs is both unnecessary and potentially soul-destroying. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus like that needs to be disputed once in a while, otherwise what we end up with is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't think were achieving a whole lot with this discussion, I think GNG should apply here, you guys think stations are inherently notable, can we leave it there? 109.76.98.47 (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wasn't able to find a lot of coverage (there's an obvious language barrier) but the OUTCOMES arguments are convincing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:17, 4 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prody (Ryan Menozzi)[edit]

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

I think this article is a hoax. One source is a dictionary that doesn't even have the word. Google brings up unrelated people w/ common last names. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Del: tagged for speedy delete —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wai-Chi Fang[edit]

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

Questionable notability since 2008!! Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF C1 ([3])--180.172.239.231 (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per section 2e. Easily passes academic notability guideline and the general notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holders of named chairs at major universities are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF #C3 (IEEE Fellow) and #C5 (named chair). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 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 Previous AFD was closed concluding the article was a hoax. No reasons have been given to think this is any different, and letting it remain through the remainder of the AFD can lead to more harm than good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Clay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Antonio Clay does not appear to be notable per the standards of WP:NGRIDIRON (the Champions Professional Indoor Football League is not a top-level professional league) and his college career at Clemson doesn't appear notable per WP:NCOLLATH. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete-looks like no games have ever been played. Wgolf (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G3 and CSD G4. Recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD, and possible partial hoax. Closing administrator, please SALT this article title, so we don't see this again in a few weeks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I just noticed "Play years-2014-2015", "retired", yeah I'm pretty sure that they already know that. Wgolf (talk) 04:21, 3 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. Euryalus (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald R. Fieve[edit]

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

~~BLP with no evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

What an absurd way to go about things. Please clarify, when you say no evidence, you mean none yet provided to the article, or you actually mean you've searched yourself and not found anything? FinalAccount (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean someone had it stupdily tagged for having no sources which confused the hell out of things and as soon as that's sorted you slap this on it. It doesn't take long to find stuff. The existing source in the article has an independently written summary of his career. Also e.g. [4][5][6] FinalAccount (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that those links aren't working very well for me. I see four passing mentions, a "membership required" message, and six passing mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah interesting. Nafsadh - did you read the psychiatric times review before voting delete? And 'passing mentions' is misleading since the Healy book goes into his background and details his study of lithium to America?? FinalAccount (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails May pass WP:BIO. -- nafSadh did say 23:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you wrongly tagged the article as no refs, added a confusing comment on my talk page saying it lacked references and to add one, and failed to reply about it, and why you are now voting to delete with no explanation or comment on the existing or additional sources listed above. If you don't reply to this I will raise a complaint about your user conduct. FinalAccount (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally on wikipedia people aren't required to explain why they made mistakes, merely keep them below acceptable levels. When !voting at AfD answering specific points is not required, only a policy-based argument behind the !vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A policy-based argument not a policy-referencing vote. And sorry but fly-by confusingly wrong taggings ignoring questions is not good WP practice. FinalAccount (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I PRODed because it had no reliable at that point. Can't see one either now; not any of the three citations are reliable, one being primary, another non-verifiable (can't access) and another unclear. The notice on your talk is automatically posted when I PRODed; you are supposed to ask me on my talk, as I am not watching your talk. Also you are supposed to be nice to other editors [7]. -- nafSadh did say 13:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a rational, policy-based or accurate comment on the Healy book or psychiatric times review, and I note user Nafsadh voted delete without having even been able to look at it. FinalAccount (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very important feature of notability is that, one should be able to look into sources about it. A source if not freely accessible, it should however be publicly accessible and at least one other editor should vouch for it. Also, even if the source is verified, it is not enough for notability. Academicians might have thousands of citations and mentions in books, even in famous ones -- that do not make them notable always. -- nafSadh did say 14:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant pontificating as multiple sources with significant coverage is sufficient. If you can't access that psychiatric times article that's your problem not mine. FinalAccount (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is your problem; because anyone can come up with dead or inaccessible link and claim whatever he will! At least one other editor shall be able to verify.

There are some more sources. Thanks for them. Let me check if those changes my vote. -- nafSadh did say 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks coming from you are accepted - my work on the article has nothing to do with your tagging deletion efforts - you hindered what I was working towards anyway. And you are a policy joke, you shouldn't have voted delete before anyone has verified or not, and it isn't even inaccessible either directly or via Google cache! FinalAccount (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I evaluate notability fails I can express that. This article have been improved in many aspects, since I PRODed and voted on AfD. Often it is a good idea to start an article in userspace or through AfC until that article is mature enough to establish notability. ~~YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS OTHER EDITORS IS NOT NICE.~~ Although you are not maintaining politeness, one of five foundations of Wikipedia, I'd suggest you to rewrite the lede. I am not bound to follow your dictation, nor do I have to explain each of my actions; my judgements were based on evidence placed added with further investigation. Despite you are sticking into an argument about only one reference, my evaluation is from all of them. So, dear, can you please STOP attacking me and help improving Wikipedia? -- nafSadh did say 20:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a handful of references, each with >100 cites according to google scholar. I've also dug up this but still failing WP:BIO. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good article list added but why the denial - multiple secondary sources with significant coverage establishes notability on the main guideline and he clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics) due to introducing/developing key DSM concepts such as bipolar II and rapid cycling, and apparently was instrumental in scientifically (seminal paper among those you've added), clinically (first lithium clinic) and popularly (through two bestsellers) establishing the use of Lithium in America. FinalAccount (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some words there I'm not seeing in the reliable sources, including "seminal" and "bestseller". Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination based on worldcat edition stats, 6 editions of moodswings from a mainstream publisher (William Morrow and Company) over twenty years. FinalAccount I suggest that you add a ((Authority Control)) template and a bulleted list of editions of his books with year, publisher and ISBN. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment: I don't care what either of you think (mainly referring to Nafsadh's latest off-topic self-serving comment), can someone just close this deletion process attacking my hard work. FinalAccount (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Technically, deletion discussions can be closed as withdrawn only when there are no remaining delete opinions. So closing it early for that reason should wait on Nafsadh (talk · contribs)'s response to the withdrawal. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. Can't confirm keep. -- nafSadh did say 03:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Beauty Pageant Ranking[edit]

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

fancruft, WP:OR The Banner talk 20:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article appears to be referenced, so how is it original research. Could you explain how it is cruft? Op47 (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because not one of the sources contains the information listed in this article. The author took a bit from here and a bit from there and created something new that was not published before. So WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are applicable. The Banner talk 20:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Original research and synthesis, with no sourcing for the assertions that any such ranking exists outside this "article". --Orange Mike | Talk 03:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not a real ranking outside wiki, it is WP:SYNTHESIS. Spumuq (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akkarshan[edit]

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

Might fall under too soon. (interesting that the link is for a article over a year old!) Nothing about it if it has been made and/or when it is coming out also. Wgolf (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Film name per "sole source":(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

and WP:INDAFD: Debraj Sinha Shivam Productions

Delete .The "Official website" appears to show the project as having completed filming,[8] and the article's sole source which spells the title Akorshon, differently than does the article, uses the phrase "...the film ‘Akorshon’ was shot at Narayani Studios".[9] So while the writer/director Debraj Sinha might merit an article in which this can be mentioned, and even if accepting that Akkarshan/Akorshon was shot, the film itself lacks the coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, one source stating that filming was started is not sufficient.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Kevin Flanagan[edit]

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

No indication why this particular suicide by shooting oneself to death has any long-standing impact in an encyclopaedic sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was originally full of WP:COATRACK for something different. With the extraneous stuff removed, all we have left is a few sentences about somebody who shot himself. Tragic, but not encyclopædic. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic but not notable....William 02:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of the reliable refs provided, they only show minimal attention to his death, mostly as a journalistic hook to discuss immigration policy. unfortunately his death did not become notable for moving this discussion forward, and was just a tragedy. we dishonor his death by trying to give him an article when the world didnt really give him one in the newspapers.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see quite a few trivial mentions, but there isn't really enough coverage to base an article on this event. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Strain (band)[edit]

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

A band with just one album. Not even a one hit wonder case or a cult favorite band it seems. Wgolf (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage for this band; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. —Gaff ^ταλκ

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4 King's Bench Walk[edit]

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

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. Having notable members doesn't make the chambers de facto notable. ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An attempt at making the building interesting but I don't think it is enough. Not notable in their own right. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable building. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's good content here which we should retain per our editing policy. The worst case is an alternative to deletion such as merger into a section in a broader article like Inner_Temple#Chambers. Andrew (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. No amount of editing can solve a lack of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 6 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) 21:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11 King's Bench Walk Chambers[edit]

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

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. Having notable members doesn't make the chambers de facto notable ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the members may be notable but I doubt the chambers themselves are. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see trivial mentions at The Guardian and The Telegraph, but mere references to its existence are not evidence of notability. If someone can find more sources that discuss it in detail, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 6 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) 21:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Square Chambers[edit]

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

Non-notable set of barristers' chambers (akin to a non-notable law firm) - fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Nothing Notable. —Gaff ^ταλκ

Delete. Some of the members may be notable but I doubt the chambers themselves are. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 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. There is a consensus to delete this article based on the comments here. If sockpuppetry is proven in the future this close can be brought up at WP:Deletion review. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VPIN[edit]

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

Moving from a PROD - too much article to warrant a PROD, and creator has long gone. Original PROD claim was "Subject is not relevant enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia. Issues have not been addressed after one year." Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this article is new research. It has not achieved (yet) enough notability to warrant an encyclopedic article. While the ideas described seem interesting, there has been no follow up for about a year. As Ronhjones ^(Talk) has pointed out, the original creator has long gone. The Proposed Deletion (PROD) notice stayed in place for over a week, and nobody challenged it. Conclusion: Nobody seems to care about this topic. Fkswe25 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, thanks goes to the nom for bringing this to AfD. Not enough people patrol PRODs for lack of action to be a reliable guide of article deficiency and this one certainly has enough sources to be a controversial deletion. A GScholar search for "volume synchronized probability of informed trading" nets 67 results, including a few secondary sources, such as From PIN to VPIN: An introduction to order flow toxicity and Bethel, E., David Leinweber, Oliver Rübel, and Kesheng Wu. "Federal market information technology in the post flash crash era: roles for supercomputing." In Proceedings of the fourth workshop on High performance computational finance, pp. 23-30. ACM, 2011, in addition to the secondary sources in the article, e.g, WSJ. There seems to be enough content in reliables source to pass notability per WP:GNG and on which to build an article. The article itself is well-structured, but tagged with neutrality concerns. Fixing neutrality concerns is a matter of simple editing and not deletion; it is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concede that the article is well written and the authors put a lot of work on it (a long time ago!) But GScholar showing 67 matches is hardly proof of notability. First, many are duplicates. Second, tens of thousands of articles are published in academic journals every year, with hundreds of cross-references between them. This is nothing special. Third, the article does not establish how this discovery has transformed our understanding of the financial world. Fourth, only a few of Einstein's papers have a dedicated Wikipedia article, and so having a dedicated article for a relatively minor contribution seems misleading. I would rather suggest that a couple of paragraphs are merged into an existing article. Fifth, the best evidence of the lack of notability is that the article has remained essentially untouched for a year, the authors are gone, and nobody even cared to remove the PROD for over a week.

In summary, this is a dead article, discussing a fringe theory, on a micro-subject of dubious relevance. Sorry for the authors, but we cannot have thousands of these, or we will go mad parsing through them. For the sake of Wikipedia's quality, and out of respect for our Editors and Admins' time and dedication, let's delete it. Amsdist (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability. At least one paper extensively cited in this article has been withdrawn or retracted from a journal, i.e. "VPIN and the Flash Crash", by Torben G. Andersen and Oleg Bondarenko. Considering how rare retractions are in finance, this puts into question the article's content. I have the impression that the article may have been written in an attempt to recover from the retraction's fallout. I strongly advice against keeping it.. Potemkin70 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you need another reason to delete, just read the article's Talk page: This article serves as a podium for a bunch of people's need to exchange accusations. Wikipedia should not be misused to legitimate personal fights or attacks. Fkswe25 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now.

As a bit of background: I am well familiar with whole VPIN literature; in the past, I made numerous edits to this wiki article; I am the one who tagged it with POV.

Fixing neutrality issues has been challenging. There is a small group of editors, who seem to be protecting interests of the VPIN patent holders and who vigorously fight incorporating in the article any critical evidence. The group seems to be coordinating their actions.

Nevertheless, if others don't mind, I would be happy to edit the existing article again. I would try to make it more balanced and streamlined. Since the last edit war, new academic evidence has been produced, which could help settle some contentious issues. At the very least, this would likely make the authors to re-appear, so we will know their opinion on possible deletion. Deletion is an extreme measure, which cannot be undone. Let's give it another try, say, a month or two?

As for notability, I will let others to decide. But here a few observations to keep in mind:

Currently, there are several dozen papers written on the topic of VPIN, more than 10 have been published, some in the very prestigious finance journals (Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial Markets (x3), Review of Finance, Mathematical Finance). This is rather remarkable, considering how relatively young the topic still is and how long does it take to publish in those journals.
Numerous secondary sources (WSJ, Bloomberg, Economist, etc.)
Just the first three VPIN papers by ELO have almost 40,000 combined downloads on SSRN network.
CFTC report cites the VPIN model as a plausible mechanism for preventing flash crashes. (CFTC is the main federal regulating agency.)
Other wiki articles reference VPIN. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash states that, so far, VPIN is the only theory on the causes of the flash crash published in peer-reviewed journal.

Also, Potemkin70, sorry, but your reason/interpretation does not make a lot of sense. Wiki article on VPIN had already existed for more than a year before any work by Andersen and Bondarenko was even mentioned in it. Moreover, their paper "VPIN and the Flash Crash" [10] was published as a lead article by J. of Financial Markets (same journal, same editors, same title, same conclusions) -- hardly a "fallout" here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:VPIN for more details on this and related issues. NMLDP (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the background information, NMLDP. I must respond to your comment, since you mentioned me by name. Your passion for the topic is obvious from your many entries in the Talk page. You obviously want to get your POV through, and that led you to take part in an edit war (please don't feel offended. I'm not judging you, only stating the facts). I think that having you review the article will only re-ignite an unnecessary controversy. The key point here is notability. There are tens of thousands of articles published in academic journals every year. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of academic synopses. We cannot have an article for each paper that appears in the hundreds of "top journals" across all disciplines. The article does not explain how this theory has transformed the field. On the contrary, the article is plagued with criticism, as written by you (whether deserved, or not). Most importantly, I find fascinating that you want to preserve an article that discusses an academic model that you consider worthless. If you believe that this theory has no value, why do you want to preserve the article? You should be the first one interested in deleting it. That seems to confirm Potemkin70's suspicion that this article is being used by a couple of people to air their personal grievances. This does not serve the interests of the broad Wikipedia community. Respectfully, I vote to delete it. Amsdist (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't take a genius to realize what is going on. I kindly ask the Admin who will decide on the fate of this article to review its History and Talk page. About 95% of the content of this article comes from only 2 editors, who are involved in an extremely aggressive dispute, exchanging accusations and trying to discredit each other. The editor favorable to VPIN stopped contributing to the article about a year ago. The editor who thinks that VPIN is useless wants to keep the article... Really?? The problem is, there is no consensus possible. The two editors are involved in a war, and nobody else is interested in this topic, because the topic never deserved to be included in an encyclopedia in the first place. Keeping it will only bring another pathetic edit war between two individuals who are behaving unreasonably (one editor appears to have impersonated the other!). So much vanity and nonsense... I strongly suggest we delete it and end so much stupidity. This is the kind of stuff that gives Wikipedia a bad name. 70.208.83.198 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As background: I'm a specialist in the subject of this article, and I have made quite a few contributions to it, as you can see from its History page. VPIN is valuable to me, however it is also clear to me that Cornellian1 should not have created this Wikipedia article, for the following reasons:

Notability. This subject is of interest to a handful of deep specialists, and has little to no interest for financial researchers, much less the general public. The proof is in the list of contributors. After more than two years, this article has been primarily edited by only a couple of people, using single-purpose accounts.
Conflict of interest and Bias editing That couple of editors have published on the subject elsewhere. Their reputations are at stake, thus the combative language and aggressive criticism. Because reputation is everything for academics, preserving the article can only perpetuate this fight for years to come, with ever greater aggressiveness. Paraphrasing Sayre's law, academic finance disputes are so bitter because there is so little at stake. There are just not enough people familiar with the topic to have a neutral, moderate discussion. Everyone who knows about VPIN has published research either in favor or against, and their contributions will be greatly biased as a result. In my opinion the article is not improving, but it is becoming more exasperating and uninformative with each new edit.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. In creating the article, Cornellian1's intention may have been to make the subject more accessible to the general public. Instead, that editor should have written a pedagogic piece for a popular trade magazine. It just does not make any sense to create an encyclopedia article on a subject so new and fresh. The unfortunate consequence has been a public fight that has invited vicious (and in my opinion, undeserved) criticism.
Writing about your work. Both, advocates and critics, are quoting and promoting their own work, as evidenced from comments in the Talk page. Both sides, advocates and critics, may benefit from preserving the article, as a mean of self-promotion. That explains why the same editor who trashes VPIN wants to keep the article. Again, I think that VPIN is valuable, however an encyclopedia article is the wrong tool to Proselytize, whether you are in favor or against this theory.
Wikipedia is not an abstracts repository. This article truly belongs to an index of published academic papers. Check the alternative outlets.

I hope the Admin decides to delete the article, because the editor critical of VPIN seems to be at it again since yesterday, expanding and commenting extensively on his own work... Berklabsci (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, and evident conflict of interest from both sides of the argument. I would hope that VPIN gains some relevance over the next decades or two, but that is just a hope. Right now there is no reason to preserve this article. The few people who have written about it should cool down, meet for a dinner and discuss about it in person, rather than using Wikipedia as their personal blog[11]. I would hope that the article's main contributor, Cornellian1, seconds this motion. I saw that Ronhjones was kind enough to leave a note for him in his User page. Mathscinet (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the creator has not edited since 14:23, 2 October 2013. But he may have e-mail alerts tuned on. We'll have to wait and see if he surfaces. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Ronhjones . All editors have stated their opinion now. Cornellian1 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I find it twisted that someone would like to keep the article just to criticize its content by quoting his own work... I do not see anything good coming out of keeping it. PaulTheOctopus (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, DELETE: Thank you all for the above comments. Specially, thank you Ronhjones for letting me know that this discussion was taking place. It was very nice to see that you cared about what my opinion might be. As some of the other editors have pointed out, I created this article and provided most of the content. I had the best intentions, and in doing so I didn't attack anyone's position. After reading carefully Wikipedia's guidelines, I must admit that this article should not exist for the reasons stated above. Most other co-editors (Berklabsci, Mathscinet, PaulTheOctopus) seem to agree. The only co-editor who suggests keeping it for now, NMLDP, is the one who has stated publicly his strong opinion that VPIN is useless. This is yet another reason to delete the article: The only co-editor who will revise it is unlikely to be neutral. I would therefore kindly ask the Admin to take into consideration the almost unanimous plead of the editors and proceed to delete this article. Thank you everyone for the effort you put into this. As someone suggested earlier, we should just meet for dinner and continue the conversation in person. Cornellian1 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see what the decision is going to be. So I will just add a few final thoughts to the obituary.

Many editors simply state "No notability", with little objective support provided. In my earlier response, I listed a few remarkable facts about VPIN (items 1-5). How many recent ideas in finance can lay claim to something similar? I can give one more fact. There were about 16,000 views of the VPIN article over the last 12 months. This amounts to more than 40 per day, which seems a lot for a "dead article". For comparison, "Black-Scholes formula" (the most famous formula in finance) had about 8,000 views over the same period, and GMM (the method which received the Nobel prize last year and, thus, experienced unusual spike in interest) had about 10,000 views.

Not only the topic is very notable, the article is also reasonably well-structured and written. It has plenty of quality sources, both original and secondary. No serious reason was given about the content of the article, which could not be fixed. So, I do agree with Mark viking that this is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem.

When one big camp of editors ("the mainstream research published over 17 years in numerous journals and textbooks by the leading experts, including a Nobel prize winner") joins the ranks with another big camp ("no notability", "a fringe theory of dubious relevance"), not much can be done. I think both viewpoints are extreme and the truth is somewhere in the middle. No question, VPIN is a controversial idea (but Wiki should not delete a notable article just because the topic is controversial). VPIN has generated a lot of attention from academics, practitioners, regulators, and media. It has been a very active research area.

Instead of the content, many editors chose to focus on their "suspicions" regarding motives of others. To be clear, I was critical of the one-sided exposition, which only represented the view of the VPIN patent holders. I always insisted on two principles: (1) every major claim in the article must be supported by verifiable sources or removed, (2) no critical but relevant research should be disqualified from the article based on vacuous, artificial grounds (such as, CPS is only a working paper, it's a wrong market, wrong assets; AB published in a wrong journal, following a wrong review process, etc.) I don't think those are unreasonable principles. Many Wiki articles are able to blend alternatives viewpoints. In fact, the vast majority of the VPIN article still represents the position of the patent holders. But, I guess, it's either one-sided or not at all.

R.I.P. VPIN. (And, sure, let's just all meet for dinner.) NMLDP (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case[edit]

There is an open sockpuppet investigation (SPI) of eight accounts, which appear to be controlled by one person. Six of them, PaulTheOctopus, Berklabsci, Mathscinet, Amsdist, Fkswe25, and Potemkin70 voted delete on this page. Details of the case can be found here [12]. Dendro75 (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had my suspicions. Thank you for letting us know. --Mark viking (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same... a new round of personal attacks by a single-purpose account... One more reason to delete this article and stop this nonsense. Fkswe25 (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! The case is very thorough and convincing. I am still studying it, but look at the User Compare Report [13]. So striking! Same editors just keep rotating from article to article. Like Mark viking, I had very strong suspicions for a very long time. NMLDP (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this particular piece from SPI is very ironic. As an editor, Amsdist does only two things: (1) tries repeatedly to add the name of the VPIN creator to Erdos_number, and (2) simultaneously argues that VPIN is "fringe theory of dubious relevance. Sorry for the authors,..." How does one reconcile (1) and (2)? Amsdist, do you have COI?

Then Fkswe25 creates his account at about the same time and also edits the same two articles: Erdos_number and VPIN. Why does suddenly everyone seem only be interested in these two? Or, is it a coincidence? I do not think so. NMLDP (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fkswe25, I see you "blanked" Talk:VPIN page. Please stop. Now that you are a subject of SPI, this really smells of desperation. If you believe that there are violations of Wikipedia rules, by all means, go after specific instances and specific editors. Do not just "blank" the whole 67,000-byte article, without a shred of evidence. Besides, you do not really delete the article -- anybody who wants can still read the previous histories. NMLDP (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - author agrees to deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lombardi (writer)[edit]

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

Autobiographical article with no reliable sources which meet guidelines for notability. Warfieldian ^(talk) 18:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources to support even general notability, appears to be self-promotion. Yworo (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - general notability, —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:41, 2 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 The Saga of Larten Crepsley#Books. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palace of the Damned[edit]

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

Not a notable book per our guidelines. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The_Saga_of_Larten_Crepsley#Books. I found one lone review from the Horn Book Guide, but everything else I found was just a passing, WP:TRIVIAL mention. I'd say that this would be a reasonable redirect to the main series page and it would also be reasonable if maybe a small book synopsis was added to the book section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. I am unsure that the redirect title, The_Saga_of_Larten_Crepsley, meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG either, but that's a separate conversation. For now, it exists and is the best redirect title. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've boldly redirected the other individual books in this series to The_Saga_of_Larten_Crepsley#Books. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Watkins[edit]

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

Another one that may not meet notability at all. (And that is unsourced and can't find any more info) Wgolf (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; previously deleted as unsourced BLP. Giant Snowman 12:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence given or found in WP:RS that WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not managed senior international football nor managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Watkins (soccer)[edit]

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

Another one that is unsourced by the same user that seems to be non notable. Wgolf (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and lack of coverage in any sources, reliable or unreliable (at least that I could find through Google). Jinkinson talk to me 16:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:20, 3 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) 11:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Holden (footballer)[edit]

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

Inherited issues, as well as the person creating this seems to keep on recreating these non sourced BLP's (usually I wouldn't put a AFD for a article that was made this recently but this seems to be an exception to the rule) Wgolf (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, verifiable, but the subject doesn't seem to meet WP:FOOTYN. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I also have the vague impression that different version of this article (probably under a different title) was deleted not too long ago. Can someone confirm this or am I just having deja vu? Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:20, 3 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) 11:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Hambelton[edit]

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

User who is making these continues to do these unsourced pages of BLP's as well as the fact they might not be notable. Wgolf (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Claim that he played many times for fully professional Oldham Athletic is false -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:20, 3 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) 11:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 16:39, 9 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 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmanand Rajput[edit]

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

No sign of wp:notability, page created by the person himself so clear case of wp:coi. Speedy deletion tagged earlier also removed by the creator of the page. Mr RD 15:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as ((db-a7)). The article tagged as such. I agree with the nominator. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-which the person keeps on removing as well. But yes delete. Wgolf (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basilio Sancho Agudo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTBALL. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL.
Delete • The article simply fails the general notability guidelines. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:05, 5 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) 11:04, 8 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 Angry Birds. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Angry Birds characters[edit]

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

I do not see how this achieves notability per WP:LISTN, for instance, which requires discussion "as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The internet is full of such lists, of course, but reliable sources, that's another matter--and the existence of something like Angry Birds Star Wars Character Encyclopedia doesn't help much, since such a game guide is hardly an independent source--by definition almost, such books are inclusive and can therefore not be expected to reliably establish the importance of any of these characters or the group as a whole. Merging into the main article, considerably trimmed, is fine with me as well, but the bottom line is that 84k of such fan material is a needless use of resources. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Non notable list of fan trivia. Sources are primary, which is ok to show these "characters" exist - but there's no discussion of the list of characters by reliable secondary sources, so fails LISTN. Begoon ^talk 15:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to series article. I went through as many of the elements as the list that I could and found zero coverage (nevertheless significant coverage) about them as individual characters. So I'm not sure a section on characters could have much justification at all. This said, redirects are cheap, and a redirect would help remind those who inevitably go to recreate a characters article for a major series that they'd need a whole lotta reliable sources before attempting to do so. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article. Fair amount of edit history and recognition around wikipedia. Page can be remade anytime with less fan material. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:52, 7 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. An unsatisfying result, like kissing one's sister, but it doesn't look as though a clear consensus is going to form here. I recommend that someone try to track down the English and German sources listed in the article and, if they turn out to lack substantial information about this person, renominating the article. (And if they do contain substantial information, adding inline citations, with titles of specific journal articles, page numbers, etc.) Deor (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N. Samuel of Tranquebar[edit]

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

Delete. Completely fails WP:NOTABLE. Article completely unsourced, and therefore violates WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Nothing about this character anywhere on the net as far as I can see, except what refers to this article. Supposed photograph of Samuel in article listed on Wikimedia Commons as 'from family sources' (therefore WP:OR and not verifiable). Not even a suggestion as to what the 'N.' may stand for. Supposed book references on Google (e.g. "Lutheran Theologians") appear to be reprints of this Wikipedia article. May perhaps be a complete hoax. Smerus (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In a period when Christian missionary work in India was domonated by white missionaries, being the first Indian professor in a theological college is notable. His list of works, presumably in Tamil (or other Indian languages) is also substantial. Whether the photo is of him or not seems immaterial to me: if it is not, it can be deleted from the article. Since most sources on him will not be in English and there was no Internet (or even computers) in his life, the lack of on-line sources is not surprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this comment does not deal with the fact that the article is totally unsourced, totally uncited, and does not meet the criteria for WP:NOTABLE. There was no internet around for the many thousands of historical figures in WP, but that has not prevented there being information about any who were notable by WP standards. Taking the material in the article (which for all we know, or all that can be demonstrated, may be a total fabrication) as read does not provide a justification.--Smerus (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails verifiability. We can't even argue about notability until we have reliable sources that can document the claims in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I count 16 "references". Many are not very well expressed, in that the cite the journal, not the article. Most are contemporary ones from the subject's lifetime. You do not have access to them, not do I, but the likelihood is that the WP author did. You are expecting standards of sourcing that may be appropriate in Europe or America, but are too high for India of that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If the 'references' quoted indeed exist (for which there is no evidence), they fail these criteria. See comment by User:David Eppstein. The issue under discussion here is not Indian standards vs. European standards, but the standards of Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I did find an online copy of one of the supposed references [14] and linked it from the article. It does include mention of an "N. Samuel". But it's written in German in a difficult font so I wasn't able to get much more than that from it. Maybe someone else who reads German can get more. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Peterkingiron.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did find one of the Books written by the subject in 1922 in Plain talk of a plain Christian and found this page 8 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly not WP:HOAX or WP:OR .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your source is a transcript form the Wikipedia article and therefore fails WP:RS. Samuel may or may not be a hoax - but if he is WP:NOTABLE how come no one can even find his first name?--Smerus (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your question about first name is based on a misunderstanding of South Indian naming conventions, in which one often sees names of the form "X. YYY". In names of this form, "YYY" is the individual's given name, and "X." is the initial of the father's given name. So "N. Samuel" would be the proper way to write this person's name, "Samuel" is a given name not a surname, and the question you are really asking is "what was his father's name". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this clarification, but the first name question was by the way, the issue remains notability.--Smerus (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply I agree the link is not WP:RS hence did not add to the article ,just added to say it was not a hoax.Some of his books are available online found one in Google books Plain talk of a plain Christian.The subject died in 1927 and hence most if not all are not available online and in other languages including Tamil Language and it is a kind of Systemic bias Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is one copy of a book by N. Samuel in the British Library and this seems to be the one found by Pharaoh of the Wizards on Google. Unfortunately none of the rest of the article on N. Samuel is verifiable, and a single book in the British Library, without any WP:RS secondary references to support it, fails WP:NOTABLE. It is not a question of systemic bias (of the sort which that rather contentious essay discusses), but one of the absence of encyclopaedically verifiable evidence. Best,--Smerus (talk) 07:05, 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the current verifiability concerns. If valid sourcing can be found later, I don't see any objecting to reinstating the article at that time. Silverfish8088 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ (changing to strong keep per rationale given below) due to numerous mentions in book sources. [15][16][17][18][19]. Although there is nothing in depth there, several authors hint that the person is notable, especially Francis who names him as a successor to Sastriyar. I suspect that a search of Tamil sources or Indian newspaper databases may well find something more substantial. SpinningSpark 10:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say there is 'nothing in depth here' is a notable understatement. Editors who check these references will find nothing but a name mentioned in passing, with not the slightest relevance to WP:NOTABLE criteria.--Smerus (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a 19th century American poet or a French poet then you couldn't blink faster than I would be typing "delete", but the subject comes from a sub-continent that had no tradition of publishing prior to independence. Sources are going to be an order of magnitude harder to find. On top of that the subject is from a minority language group and the systemic bias here for English language sources makes it another order of magnitude harder. In view of that, I am prepared to cut this one a lot more slack. SpinningSpark 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I find User:Spinningspark's sources persuasive. See below.ShulMaven (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Even stipulating that the sources exist and contain what they describe, I'm not seeing enough evidence of notability. There are many things that might be notable (He was the first this (somebody has to be first), he wrote this, he was considered that, etc.) but the article doesn't make their case well enough. - Richfife (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on the new information that has come to light, noted above by Spinning, I do not think it is a complete hoax. That was one of the initial concerns when listed to AfD. Consider tagging up the article expressing concerns regarding verifiable sources. Consider finding a translator to review Tamil language Wikipedia? —Gaff ^ταλκ 02:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above. The 'references' found by Spinning scarcely consitute 'new information which has come to light' - as reading them will testify.--Smerus (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Saying that they may have notability simply because their name appears in a few articles does not a notable make. There is nothing that goes into depth on this subject that makes me feel they are notable on their own merits. Tagging this article is not going to miraculously place sources in ones path. If there are none, then there are none. I have searched everywhere and have only come across the ones mention above. Delete away! --Canyouhearmenow 11:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is a list of sources in the references section (the first one, not the second one, which should probably be renamed "notes" or somesuch) none of which are available online. They are not inline citatitons, but lack of inline citations are not grounds for deletion. Per the WP:AGF policy, we should assume that these sources do indeed have sufficient depth of coverage until shown that they do not. None of these sources are online and there is no indication whatsoever that any of those calling for deletion on the basis of the WP:NOTABILITY guideline have actually examined these sources. Those !votes should therefore be discounted as not policy based. The nomination suggested this may be a hoax. While there is nothing in depth online, there is sufficient information to show that the subject existed and the cited sources exist in libraries. Come back here after visiting the libraries. SpinningSpark 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and try to get a Tamil-speaker to improve it. Tranquebar was a Danish outpost, and the Lutheranism to which he converted was therefore most likely the Lutheran Church of Denmark, so it is may well be that in the period in which Samuel lived, sources, the church records - and such histories as have been written of Protestantism in Tharangambadi are in Danish (or in German or in English). Moreover, there is no certainty that the name "Samuel" was spelled "Samuel" a century ago. However, googling the Tamil name given in this article: ஞா.சாமுவேல் produced links in Tamil (a language that I neither read nor speak) However, this one has some English and looks authentic: http://dhyanamalar.org/hymns-spiritual-songs/who-is-gb/ and http://dhyanamalar.org/2010/04/05/about-us/ and http://dhyanamalar.org/hymns-spiritual-songs/5-yesu-en-neysar-sagaayarumaam/ The difficulty of producing articles on the non-Anglophone world is endemic to Wikipedia. Is there a system for contacting a Tamil -speak re: articles of this sort?ShulMaven (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ABCD: Any Body Can Dance 2[edit]

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

An as-yet-unreleased film. The coverage in the sources provided is passing at best; no in-depth discussion in reliable sources. fails WP:MOVIE. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Clearly fails WP:NFF. The filming hasn't begun.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC) See Below.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. CutestPenguin ^discuss 14:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this searchable/sourcable title to ABCD: Any Body Can Dance#Sequel where this sequel can be written of and sourced in context. This production has been receiving coverage for it planned filming,[20] but as we have no confirmation that filming has actually begun, WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is failed. Simply a bit TOO SOON. Allow recreation/undeletion once filming commences. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC) STRUCK my !vote. See below. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Filming has now begun, per this source. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

And through WP:INDAFD: [21][22]

Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3),[23][24][25] and continue improvements through regular editing, as production of this sequel HAS received coverage to meet WP:GNG AND filming is confirmed to have begun. Wikipedia will benefit though improvement using regular editing, but not deletion. My thanks go out to Krimuk90 sharing a source confirming filming. I have struck my "vote" toward a redirect. Well done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shooting has been started as per These souces [26] [27] [28]. Babita arora 10:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several high quality sources say that the filming has begun and hence the article meets WP:NFF.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:01, 6 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 showing that the subject meets the inclusion guidelines. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Krásný[edit]

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

This article was twice deleted, once for unreferenced BLP, and once speedily for lack of importance. Author recreated it again. The main issue is the lack of notability. There are no reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt: Delete for lack of notability. Salt for user's persistence in re-creating. Bazj (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as up and coming but not yet prime time. I could find zero online reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Makhuli[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, no independent sources present to prove notability The Banner talk 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability, Only crap I've found are all FB/Twitter related. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Davey2010. I looked at several pages of Google and found nothing reliable except one photo from the Los Angeles Times. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Molhem Barakat[edit]

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

I believe that this is a case of being famous for only one thing, being a young photo journalist. Also feel that this could be a case of WP:NOT#NEWS Gbawden (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a cursory Google search can show, there is wide coverage of his death, not being a young photojournalist. Furthermore, many of the articles discuss how Reuters was irresponsible for putting such a young life in harm's way. Namiba didn't give a reason when they contested the deletion, but they also don't find this a case of NOTNEWS. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Ktr noted, Barakat's death has been profiled by international publications, policy journals and other verifiable sources.--TM 13:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded per the above. Widespread non-trivial coverage easily establishes notability in this case. Nik thestunned 16:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Very dodgy looking nomination. No indication of any copyright violation. If there is another organisation with the same name it can have its own article if it's notable. This one clearly exists and is well known, obviously not a hoax. Ged UK 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Shōnen Jump[edit]

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

This article is a copyright violation. Its notability is also very questionable. It is also a hoax - Weekly Shōnen Jump is a terrorist organization, not a childrens' manga magazine. Lovestolive2014 (talk) 11:23, 2 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 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is an extremely bad faith nomination by a persistent vandal who is already the subject of a sock puppet investigation for vandalism to the article.SephyTheThird (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Sephy. Really OP? 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:03, 2 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scivelation[edit]

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

This article is on an unreleased video game in development. There is no substantial coverage about this game that would establish notability. The two references in the article are not substantial. One is a trailer, and the other is basically a note saying the game is coming as they got a press release. My own searches turn up the similar stuff. For example, this item in Giant Bomb. Whpq (talk) 10:53, 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) 01:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Might be unreleased, but it has significant coverage. E.g.,

http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/another-dystopian-future-awaits-in-scivelation/

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/01/23/scivelation-is-the-name-of-a-game-for-some-reason/#more-139433

http://www.gamesradar.com/e3-2011-scivelation-preview-what-on-earth-is-a-scivelation/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/scivelation-unveiled-for-pc-and-consoles

http://www.vg247.com/2009/11/25/scivelation-hitting-360-along-with-pc-during-q3-2010/

http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/10/indie-and-other-games-of-interest-gray-matter-great-battles-free-stuff/

Press releases (posting so as not to be construed as coverage): [29][30]

I usually recommend searching WP:VG/RS's custom Google search before bringing an item to AfD. Also, since there are pages for this game's dev, it might have been a good idea to try even redirection as a minimum before bringing the topic to AfD. Anyway, given the above sources, I recommend withdrawing the nom. czar ♔ 17:47, 6 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. Even when mostly discounting SPAs, I do not find consensus to delete. There are good arguments for a merge but no consensus on a target, so this should probably be further discussed on the article's talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC Master Race[edit]

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

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

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

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

Though the term is fairly widely used I can't find any reliable coverage of the term or its importance. There may be a place for discussing the benefits of PC gaming, but I don't think this is it. Sam Walton (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final note to Wikipedia It's September 9th now, and it appears that the article is a nearly complete replacement from what it was at the time of nomination. Someone generously went through and absolutely filled it with popular sources, which really helps out with the notability and such. Wikinium (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Wikipedia admins This page has changed since the nomination and continues to change each day. I'm going to work on stripping garbage out of it some more. A lot of this garbage is the reason so many people feel so negative towards it and want it deleted. Wikinium (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the PC Master Race started as satire it has become much more than that. It is a reliable source of information. PC gaming has been overshadowed during the last years based on misconceptions and false information. Unfortunately we, as PC gamers do not have large companies like Microsoft and Sony to spend millions on marketing and 'getting the word out'. This is a legitimate move that is aimed to fix this. Potential users/gamers can find information that will help them make more informed decisions. It has grown insanely popular and has provided information on the subject to a lot of new/potential users. Let's not be fooled by the satirical name, this is something serious an useful! Soupias (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Soupias (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate ideology and term, and should be kept as a reliable source for information on the ideology. PhoenixGamer (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— PhoenixGamer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presently, fails WP:NEO. It might be sourceable but the bulk of sourcing is from not the best RS that we can provide. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ideology is fairly new and therefor sources must be given a fair shake. Sources can not be expected to come from normally reputable places as the article is culture based and, again, fairly new. It fits just as well as any other ideology and has the following and devotion normally attributed with such. As well WP:NEO does not work with this entry as the reason for the entry's creation is to give overall consensuses to the view provided not to increase its' use. Lord_Anorak 10:55, 2 September 2014

— Lord Anorak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a neologism. I am officially in favor of keeping it, even if it means leaving up the citation and incomplete notice until all the correct sources are gathered. This term is real, this term is popularly used, and this term is notable. This is a brand new article, and it already has a very nice selection of sources (some of which arrived after the nomination for deletion). Give this article a chance to obtain sources and it'll be indisputably notable soon enough. As for the claim of it being a neologism, it most certainly isn't. This term is part of gaming pop culture and has been for several years. There are plenty of sources now in place that back this all up, and likely many more to come.Wikinium (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't give notability opinions anymore, but these sources are not used: Escapist (I can't remember; is this the blacklisted one, or is that The Guardian?), Kotaku, Pulp365. Tezero (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Escapist article is written by the guy who coined the term FYI. Sam Walton (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand if writing out the reasoning for each point in the ideology seems out of place - as maybe this isn't the place for justifying PC gaming. But I do believe that the term deserves a page. It's already used by - at the very least - hundreds of thousands, more likely millions. It doesn't need a page to increase use. But simply having a Wikipedia page rather than just "Know your meme" being in the Google results would, in my opinion, be an improvement. Teaearlgraycold (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading those, I can definitely see that this term/ideology is documented enough to have its own page. I understand the concerns and fear of vandalism, but I created this article in good faith. There are a lot of people out there who would love to see this article deleted due to disagreement, but if we can put one together that well-cited enough, it will be safe from vandalism via the opposing voices. This term is real, and it's everywhere. It's just not covered extremely well by reporters, Kutaku and a handful of others have written on it though (it appears). I vote against deletion, although there's a lot of unneeded stuff on the page right now (there's even an article on mods). Wikinium (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also an article here: http://www.2d-x.com/the-ps4-and-xbox-one-are-here-now-what that actually refers to them as "The" PC Master Race, which could be a good source for use on anything that tries to explain it's more than just a term. It doesn't necessarily say ideology, but it kind of paints it out as a group, which is good source material for sure.Wikinium (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also want to further explain the article. It's not intended to be a neologism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#NEO. There are people that are generally curious about the term, and this article could help explain that right off the bat. Creating a small article about a term as massive as 'PC Master Race' really wouldn't even make a dent in its usage. This term is indeed popular (as seen by the 200k users of the subreddit alone). I hope this helps clarify for those who suspect it to be a neologism.Wikinium (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to... somewhere? I was going to say console wars but that seems to have been deleted. Maybe PC game? It deserves a section of a larger article at best. If you deign to give it its own article, internet mouthbreathers will make it balloon to a 300kb monstrosity of every instance of a PC game being better than a console version AND all the times they've been "screwed by the Man" with their PC ports. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When people Google "PC Master Race", they're going to want to learn what it means and why it exists and why it's used, not some article on a fight between consoles.Wikinium (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I understand the concerns, if there are enough sources to back up the fact that this term, and/or group of people(the subreddit) are notable, I think it would be a neat article. If the use of the term is incorrect, maybe the article could be renamed to "PC gaming superiorority" or something similar. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the entire idea with neologisms. There of course will be sources that mention it, but if it is not widely adopted across the industry, it's a niche aspect. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is why I propose making the article not about the word itself, but the group of people it represents. Although, there would still have to be articles describing why they are notable as a group. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth, at the Midwest Game Developers' Conference (I think that's what it was called?) this past summer, a speaker who'd worked on numerous notable games (like one of the Far Crys, IIRC) unironically used the phrase "PC master race" as an interjection. It was hard to sit still after that, but surely that shows something. Tezero (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a legitimate usage of a widespread term and it should be an article that is kept. 81.108.161.238 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Console players need to learn PC superiority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenofnine24 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Sevenofnine24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Also a troll response. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick introductory note for the newcomers here: Console gaming is shitty compared to what PC gaming offers, but that does not automatically mean that a catchphrase related to the issue is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Articles on Wikipedia need to demonstrate notability and that they meet the project's scope; if you wish to convince the community here to keep this article, you will have to make your arguments and reasonings so that they specifically address Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, instead of simply spouting in-jokes. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same as above, plus this is a legitimate term. Sulphuric Glue (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has nothing to do with discussing benefits of PC or not. The Wikipedia page is for those, who want to learn about the term in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeitgeist1911 (talk • contribs)

— Zeitgeist1911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Been using this term for a long time, a quick Google search shows many, many, many, many, many results dating back to 2008. MajorDesync (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— MajorDesync (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI: The above, along with assumed further keeps, originate from this reddit thread. Sam Walton (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Common term to describe an idology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.226.41 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - been thinking a while on this one, and I don't think there is enough coverage and usage of the term in independent and reliable sources for it to warrant an article. No doubt that the term is legitimate and that it is widely used within the community - but the question at hand is of its coverage in reliable and independent sources. Of the sources that actually cover the term 'PC Master Race', the majority are unreliable and self-published (Urban Dictionary, reddit, Know Your Meme, etc.). The most reputable sources provided that cover the term appear to be Kotaku, Pulp365, and The Escapist, which I don't think is enough to have an article. That being said, I think a mention of the topic on another article (such as PC game) and having a redirect there would be appropriate. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Those media outlets (as well as the many others that are being located and added to the page every day) are certainly enough to allow it to have its own page. There are lots of people out there who search for this exact term, curious as to its meaning. Merging it and burying it in a barely related article seems a bit over-the-top for a perfectly notable term/meme such as 'PC Master Race'. Lesser-notable terms and memes have their own pages, I just think that this one is more attractive to vandalism, censorship, and hatred due to its controversial nature. This page deserves to exist. Wikinium (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough on your analysis of sources - that's something editors will always analyze differently. However, I wouldn't call any merged content "buried". Assuming the article is merged and redirected, any content worth mentioning (ideally the term's definition and history) would still be wholly available, just not as an independent article. Regarding the existence of other articles, that's not really a good argument for the notability of this one - though I'm curious about what memes have pages out there that are less significant than PC Master Race. As for the article matter being prone to censorship and hatred, I can see the logic behind that, but I think that's definitely non-issue at the moment. I'm going to throw out there that I myself am big into PC gaming, and also frequent the respective subreddit which, if anything, has driven more support here than any 'gut instinct' arguments for deletion or merging based on the dislike of the subject. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to PC game#Contemporary_gaming or a new subsection on PC gaming culture. Not sure I'd go so far as to say it's a non-notable neologism, but the subject of discussion is clearly something related to PC gaming culture and not a phenomenon of an actual "PC Master Race" apart from PC gaming culture. Thus it should be merged in with other aspects of contemporary PC gaming culture. Furthermore, "PC Master Race" does not have significant coverage as a term on its own (per a WP:VG/RS search), so it would be impossible to write a full article on the topic: it does not warrant its own article. This is to say that WP is not a dictionary and this neologism has no coverage about rather than using the phrase. My condolences to the closer of this beast. czar ♔ 02:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems contradictory. You won't accept the term being covered as a neologism, yet you disallow any evidence for its notability not related to the term itself. Tezero (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. I'm saying I don't think it's non-notable enough to be deleted outright. It's a useful search term, but I think its main scope is PC gaming culture (under the PC game article) and not a separate "PC Master Race" article as a separate concept. I don't see any sources covering such a separate concept in depth. This is the closest I've found other than it being used as a phrase in headlines. The last sentence is a reference to NEO in NOTDIC, that neologisms aren't bad per se but the coverage needs to be about the term itself rather than a bunch of articles that use the term. (If it's the latter, all you can do is make a statement to the effect that "it's used", which is not enough to build an article around.) I don't see the contradiction czar ♔ 02:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: At its current state, the article doesn't seem like it can stand by itself. Some parts consist of original research, and the page overall needs work before it can meet article standards. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete as per above. The sourcing in this article is also very misleading as many of the cited sources in fact do not reference this term at all, such as [31], [32], [33], [34]. Additionally, [35] cites a comment on the article and not the article itself. There is definitely not enough - actual - coverage in RS to warrant an independent article. The AfD is also attracting a ton of SPAs/socks/meatpuppets whose comments do not give any legitimate, policy-based rationale for keeping and their !votes should therefore be discarded. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 08:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of those sources were put in due to someone saying certain points needed to be backed up, they were added as evidence to specific claims on the wiki page (such as Sony misleading gamers) but as the article has been condensed since they were added and some of the content had been removed, I agree that the sources themselves should probably be removed. Plokinub (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Question about merge/redirect Does anyone know if people searching on Google for the term will get what they're looking for if this redirects to a subsection of another article about PC gaming? My biggest concern is that the information will remain inaccessible to the majority of people who are trying to learn about it.Wikinium (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't really predict search engine results, but I'll say with confidence that, given time, the merging of 'PC Master Race' to another article will cause that article to appear for search results on 'PC Master Race'. Note that redirect pages themselves don't show up in search engine results. Regardless, SEO of our articles aren't really something we should be worried about for a deletion discussion. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT, namely, WP:NOTNEO. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is not a neologism.Wikinium (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Sergecross73 msg me 10:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Czar; as amusing as it is, it does seem to not be notable enough for its own article. Ansh666 01:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. Jucchan (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is not a neologism.Wikinium (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is widely accepted and has been noted by celebrities and well known people quite a bit in the past year. There should be a section added that shows some of the famous people that have referred to it. (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup on opinions and all, but it seems notable enough to me. It's both a neologism and an ideology, while we don't cover the former we do cover the latter. (We also cover notable memes) ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 22:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat reluctantly because of the negative associations with Master Race and Nazism, but the term has become "ubiquitous" in the computer gaming community by many well-sourced accounts such as here and here and here and here. It started as a quasi-satirical joke in 2008 and caught on BIGTIME in the computer gaming world -- for example, there are 6000+ pageviews on this Wikipedia article alone. What has been happening is that mainstream computer gaming writers tend to avoid the term (so there are fewer references than one might think in respectable publications), although there are so many mentions of the terms by gamers, posting anonymously on blogs, that suggest the term is well past the neologism stage, and that there is no risk that Wikipedia, by posting this article, will commit original research by foisting the term on the public; rather, the term was first foisted (sorry couldn't resist) by Croshaw. Further, the article has been 'edited' by numerous first-time Wikipedia contributors, who don't understand rules about sourcing, neutrality, who play rather lame jokes such as redirecting someone who clicks on video game console to potato, and so forth. The article now is in rather good shape but I expect that further neophytes will muck it up, so if the page could be blocked for a bit would be a good idea (until the deletion debate subsides), or signs posted inside the article advising users not to add junk. So, a reluctant keep, although it is my personal hope that gamers might find a less offensive way of describing themselves and their battles over platform superiority.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the term is a neologism but whether there is enough coverage about the neologism as an idea that would justify its own article. For a more accurate page count, see the views here. The four links mentioned above are a forum (unreliable source) and three mentions. There is no actual significant coverage of what a PC Master Race is apart from its role in PC gaming culture, which is worth perhaps one or two sentences in such an article on gaming culture given the current sourcing or else be weighted unduly. czar ♔ 16:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is extended discussion of the concept here in Escapist magazine which is a reliable source, even if it was by the term's coiner, written because he's responding to the term's (unfortunate, in my view) popularity. The term is making its way (slowly) into mainstream media such as Forbes magazine here and the New York Daily News here, and I think it is evident why the term, given its dark associations with Nazism (I recently did a lecture course on pre-WW2 Germany), has been reluctantly touched on by mainstream publications. The pageview statistics, 6000+ on one day, and getting 8651 views over five days again suggests the term is notable, even if pageview counts of course is not an official test of notability. We can think of pageview numbers in another way: there are 8000+ readers who are curious enough to click on the page, who want to know more about the concept, what it means, perhaps battling whether the PC platform is better than the console platform, who will be either (1) upset that the article gets deleted or (2) will work towards restoring it if deleted. While I'm not a big fan of pop culture here in Wikipedia, I've learned to shrug my shoulders, accept it, and at least try to cover it adequately when we can rather than try to disinfect Wikipedia with the ole' cleansing option.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Escapist piece is written by the person who coined the term, it does not help establish the subject's notability. The Forbes article is misleading because it is written by one of some 1500 Forbes "contributors" making it little better than a blog (that it is written by someone who could be considered a video game journalist makes this source debatable however). The third source is merely a mention; it does not contain any real sourceable content. Sam Walton (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Escapist piece was coiner-written but that does not undermine the credibility for me since it was clear that Croshaw was trying to explain the term's popularity, and for him to comment on how the term's usage has changed over time, from barb directed at 'elitist' PC gamers into a general term of superiority by all PC gamers. Further, the article is further referenced by the 2008 video-review by Croshaw. It makes sense. A quick test: do you believe the article? I do. It is not phony-baloney. Further, Forbes contributor Paul Tassi is not just some blog writer, but he knows enough about gaming to have been trusted by Forbes' publishers to have his thinking published in a mainstream business magazine; after all, there are 35+ articles in Wikipedia using Tassi as a reference; why would you choose to discount one Forbes-Tassi reference when he is accepted as a trusted reference in 35 other Wikipedia articles? It is all legit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This logic is very confused. No one said the term (the neologism) is not in wide use. The question is whether there is enough discussion about the idea to which the term refers to substantiate its own article. All of the mentions you just described other than the source that actually coined the term do not go into depth about the phenomenon of a "PC Master Race" other than mentioning the term. This is because "PC Master Race" is actually about PC gaming culture, which would be the article topic anyway, if there were even enough sources to substantiate a full article on that topic. Since there are not, it makes sense to cover both PC gaming culture and the PC Master Race (as merged) in the topic on PC gaming. czar ♔ 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are more sources such as this one plus a prominent discussion in a Spanish-language gaming magazine here and also here and here and here and here plus there's a Facebook page with almost 12,000 likes -- again suggesting major interest in this subject. Many magazines using "PC Master Race" in the title of the article, as if the magazine's editors know that this phrase will attract readers interested in the PC-vs-console debate. It is discussed prominently in the influential gaming blog named Kotaku and in know your meme website. There is so much coverage in forums that it is sometimes difficult to find the good sources; I used the "-forums" addition into the browser bar and found this was helpful while searching. And while PC Master Race is part of PC gaming culture, the term, in itself, has a history and a story, and is encyclopedic in its own right, as numerous references show. See, a reader wanting to know what PC Master Race means, or a journalist, and they type that into their browser, if they get redirected to PC Gaming culture, they'll be confused -- they will want to know, what does the term mean, so I do not think a redirect is a wise choice here. Another thing: there is a counter-culture aspect going on here, as if the term with its Nazi associations is deliberately used with kind of a wink, so that users know they will not be covered much in the popular press, kind of like flying under the radar, but this is my POV. Still, I believe it is a disservice to Wikipedia's readers not to cover this topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those links show that the term is in use, not that there is a discussion around the term. I could source by source but suffice it to say that no one is discussing the cultural concept of a PC Master Race—they are just using the phrase in their headline slugs and telling readers how to build their own PCs. Inclusion in Wikipedia is not based on how many Facebook likes something has or even how many zillion times it's mentioned anywhere but on the depth of reliable sources, which is to say that if a term is used a zillion times it doesn't matter at all unless there are reliable sources we can use to actually write an article about it. Everything pointed to above does not provide that depth of coverage. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't cover things just because people want to know about the term (which, to be honest, isn't even being argued, because the term is going to be referenced within the PC game article anyway...) Nothing else I can say here without repeating the policies again czar ♔ 19:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources do discuss the term prominently--its origin, how it evolved, what it means--so I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What independent source has discussed the term's origin, evolution, or meaning for more than a single sentence (a passing mention)? I looked through all the sources and I don't remember seeing a single one, but I'm happy to be proven wrong czar ♔ 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here and here and to a lesser extent here. Further, the WP:BASIC rule says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources (in the article) may be combined to demonstrate notability so the other references can be combined to further establish notability. Just for the record, it is my personal POV that the term is inaccurate since there is only one true Master Race.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Shi-min[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable artist. Suspected case of self-promotion. The only reliable-sounding source found for this subject during a Google Search is the "Museum of Contemporary Art, Asia", which turned out to be a nonexistent museum which appears to be connected with the artist. Therefore, I have also listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museum of Contemporary Art, Asia, apparently created by the same group of sockpuppets. The Lee Shi-min article was previously listed for deletion in 2008, but the result was "Keep" even though the majority of the "keep" votes came from single-purpose accounts which are obvious sockpuppets: User:KWongtawan, User:Bream1, User:Kreisler, possibly associated with the banned User:Abd. Other probable sockpuppets include User:Toraya and User:Kirovsky. I also need to list March of the Dolls for deletion, also a non-notable subject associated with this guy...all in all, a big web of sockpuppets and self-promotion to sift through. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given by nominator and reasons I myself gave back in 2008. --Nlu (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax, just like the associated "museum" article. -Zanhe (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A7 at best, G3 at worst.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Contemporary Art, Asia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Museum of Contemporary Art, Asia

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

Entirely nonexistent museum. Website hasn't been updated in years. Listing for deletion in tandem with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Shi-min (2nd nomination), an article apparently created by the same group of sockpuppets for promotional purposes. Can find no evidence that their "major collaborating organisation" exists, nor their award-winning artists, nor their supposed "prominent exhibits". A hoax. Citobun (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be also noted that based on that own museum's own Web site, the last exhibition appeared to have been in 2010 - at a gallery not owned by the alleged museum. This suggests that this "museum" was entirely a ruse. (Also, there is no evidence I can find of its publication's existence.) --Nlu (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Citobun (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've visited Hong Kong numerous times and have read multiple editions of Lonely Planet and Rough Guide books about the city, but have never heard about this "museum" before. Tellingly, the museum's own website looks amateurish and does not even provide a physical address or phone number. Almost certainly a hoax. -Zanhe (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 or A7--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:53, 3 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 Glena (film). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glena Avila[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not come close to meeting WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glena (film) Obviously not notable as an MMA fighter, but being the subject of a documentary is different.Mdtemp (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mdtemp's comment above. Non-notable MMA fighter. The existence of the documentary film makes this easy, even if the subject were marginally notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It's clear that her notability is tied to the film and that she wouldn't be considered notable without it. Papaursa (talk) 18:36, 7 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Yuncza[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artists - wrote a few articles. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair it might be worth looking at the page history. Quite a bit of information was deleted for being excessively promotional (I see copyvio issues also). The stub that remains does not say much. I don't think the deleted information would change the situation but the SPA creator may have been confused about tone and formatting. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources are articles he's written. Nothing shows he meets WP:MANOTE, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a one line article with no claims of notability. I agree with the previous comments that he doesn't meet GNG or the specific criteria for martial artists or authors, which are his stated fields. Papaursa (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks independent secondary sources to support notability. Cult of Green (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm don't normally like incrementally adding additional articles to an existing AfD, because it's sometimes not clear which comments apply to which articles. In this case, the additional articles were added almost immediately after the original nomination and there seems to be clear consensus that they should all be treated the same way, so calling this Delete All. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australia at the team sports international competitions[edit]

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

Entire premise of article is original research. It is a synthesis of uncited published material (which appears to be Wikipedia itself) that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. The conclusions, such as comparing the Australian men's cricket team's silver medal at the 1998 Commonwealth Games to the Australian men's basketball team's 17 continental championships (incidentally, this number is out-of-date and counts only one particular continental competition), are fundamentally flawed. The table form is too simplistic to provide any meaningful comparison given the varying levels of competition and organisation. Hack (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to nomination - since my nomination of the Australian article, articles in a similar style have been bundled below. The sole sources are to http://sports123.com/ a currently inactive sports results site which doesn't not appear to be a reliable source. The articles should be deleted for the same reasons as the Australian articles. Hack (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom (thanks for putting this through the right channels for me).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For all the above reasons, plus the fact that the name is grammatically gruesome, and makes almost no sense. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict x2> adding;

all part of the same set of articles which were prod'd but due to commonalities and prior discussion AFD was suggested. Gnan garra 09:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgetting:

Also;
Support for reasons above. --Falcadore (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While all these articles seem silly, I am primarily here to argue for deletion of the Australian article. It will be disappointing if the existence of the other articles gets in the way of deletion of the Australian one. They should probably all be deleted, but I don't see why they have to be treated as a package if that's going to make things more complicated. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments for keeping and deleting any of them are identical. Grouping such articles together is commonplace and routine. --Falcadore (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe. I still cannot comprehend why they have lasted as long as they have. I already believe that the existence of multiple articles has delayed the deletion of any of them. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Obscure wording of the article titles. No-one would look for an article with a name like that and they don't really link to anything. Just obscurity. --Falcadore (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to agree with that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AlanS^talk 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. AlanS^talk 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AlanS^talk 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AlanS^talk 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Delete all as per nomination. AlanS^talk 23:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support/delete all. Mess of original research, poorly sourced at an incomprehensible title on a topic that doesn't make sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, not sure how these have managed to survive for so long, but quite clearly massively flawed from the title all the way down. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

QuestionWhat happens next? Who does it? HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- answer an independent admin will review and make a decision based on consensus and then take the appropriate action Gnan garra 04:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When? HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Sport_in_Australia#International_competitions especially the tables where they have some relevance similarly for the other articles. While the content is currently sourced to WP articles its clear the information meets notability requirements and has reliable 3rd party sources available otherwise those articles wouldnt exist. They arent WP:OR all they appear to be is a fork of Sport in Australia Gnan garra 09:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if you must. Just get rid of this idiotic name and stupid comparisons. Now. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The nature of the compilation of the data is what is WP:OR. The article is grouping together events that are not grouped together otherwise. The raw data is of course not original, but presenting it in this manner, and particularly drawing connections between sports where none exist, is very definately OR. --Falcadore (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of places with the ZIP Code 90210[edit]

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

NN and uncited. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:IINFO. This one is pretty clear cut, and the article comes of really as some sort of joke. One of the sources is Wikipedia, further undermining the article's position. Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as info is already at 90210 and there's no call for a separate list. The title is not a likely search term (certainly not something someone is going to try before just typing in "90210") so it wouldn't be a useful redirect. Don't even waste your time on the "uncited" argument, as if the fact of a zip code is somehow not verifiable. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the points above. There's also no mention of why this ZIP code is special enough to warrant a list of any length. Sure, it's featured in a TV show, but what hasn't? moluɐɯ 17:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In support of keeping this article alive: '90210' gets around 368,000 searches every month as confirmed by just using the Google Keyword Planner. ZIP Codes are not permanent. Countries may change them every 50-60 years. It would be quite useful to have a page documenting the same ZIP Codes across various countries as a form of confusion avoidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svram (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You've basically made three unrelated assertions, the first two of unclear significance to why this separate list should be maintained, and the third an unsupported conclusion that does not logically follow from the first two. Why, in your opinion, is 90210 inadequate to list the two locales that have this zip code? postdlf (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - We already have 90210, I was actually expecting a long list ... not 2 areas that already at 90210 anyway. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary fork. No evidence has been presented that any country ever has changed the substance of its postal codes. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katerena DePasquale[edit]

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

Non-notable model / clothing designer. Coverage is insignificant, mostly found in blogs and other self-published sources. —Waldhorn (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As sadly can't find any evidence of any notability, There may be sources in Russian/Ukrainian but obviously I can't read Russian/Ukrainian. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Designing for Dior is quite a major claim, but having had a closer look at the sources and searched generally I can't verify notability. If she worked at Dior it was probably as an assistant designer rather than anywhere approaching a Galliano level. Cannot confirm notability. Mabalu (talk) 12:08, 5 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 G5 and G7. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benham Parsa[edit]

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

A character from the television show NCIS. Portrayed by Indian actor Karan Oberoi but myself didn't found any sources to meet WP:GNG. So as per Ravensfire nominated the page. Bohra Karanvir K (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jin, since you're the only author on the page, you can request a speedy delete. See the WP:G7 for instructions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable character of show not even listed in List of NCIS characters. Also some discrepancies between NCIS wikia and info on this page. Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of available reliable sources suggests that this character is not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Character fails GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G5 Speedy Delete : Created by sock of banned user Howzat Utseya (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This NCIS character has not received commentary or analysis in multiple sources. He's no Leroy Jethro Gibbs, but has a home in the fan Wikis. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete also tagged as such (G7 & G5) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:37, 8 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Himal Karki[edit]

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

Well the ref gave me nothing, so I looked up else where and can't find anything. The page is also confusing as well, just check the years on this page. Yeah....that does not make any sense at all. Wgolf (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, before anyone says it should of been a speedy, well it was apparently already. (And notice the page creator has the same name as the article) Wgolf (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Not notable youth leader. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a hoax. I can't find anything, no reliable source found. Totally fails GNG. It also qualifies for speedy deletion criteria. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I strongly doubt that this is an outright hoax; the one cited ref does indicate that he exists (although the nominator is correct that it doesn't contain anything of substance about him besides confirming his existence), and I'm willing to grant that there might very well be more substantive coverage of him in Nepali language sources than anybody's been able to find so far in English ones. That said, the role that he holds, according to this article, is not one that confers an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and one source confirming his existence is not sufficient to get him past WP:GNG either. And while conflict of interest isn't a reason for deletion in and of itself, it doesn't do the article any favours if there are other substantive reasons for deletion in addition to the COI. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can create a good version that cites enough actual sourcing to pass GNG, but this version is definitely a delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. The information of being a district representative is true. [36] I searched for sources in Nepali language too but only I found was being a district representative from Nepali Congress, which credibly doesnot signify his notability. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 23:27, 8 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. Michig (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saradha Narayanan[edit]

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

She has written two books, but neither seems to have gained the coverage for her to pass the notability guidelines for an author. Nothing else about her seems to approach notability either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe speedy.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 26 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 05:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable writer with one NN book. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. Several sweeps did not find any sources. Her book Freedom of Choice on Amazon has been there since 2008, has no customer reviews.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 7 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) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anubha Bhonsle[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:Notability (people) Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 8 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 ♔ 20:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, a non-notable journalist in India won a non-notable award? — Wylie pedia 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable so far. AAA3AAA (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few refs. You decide. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:15, 25 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 05:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: See [37], diffs of material added since last delete opinion was registered. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 2 deletes + the nominator. Does my delete make it any clearer. The 2 awards won by the subject are not notable. The occasional article does not confer notability. Delete, delete, delete. Op47 (talk) 20:10, 3 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 Dead Rising 2. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the Sound[edit]

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

This song fails WP:NSONG as it has not been the subject of discussion in third party media. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SilentDan (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dead Rising 2 might be a suitable solution. People may search of the song and having the redirect might be useful. PNGWantok (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dead Rising 2. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a redirect is reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinesexuality[edit]

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

This appears to be a concept that hasn't been developed by anyone other than its creator. Her book of the same name has gotten a few reviews,[38][39] but that's the extent of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found some reviews for the work and I've added them to Patricia_MacCormack#Books. I can also see where the concept has been in some books ([40], [41], [42]) but it's almost always in books where MacCormack has been a contributor. If we can find more coverage for the book (I don't think that Media Culture could be usable as a RS) then we would probably be able to make an article for the book (which would be a way to include information on the concept itself). It's right at the cusp where we could probably argue for an article for the book. I can't find much for the coverage as a separate entity from the book, though. If all else fails, we could probably condense this into a small subsection's worth of material, merge it into the main article for MacCormack, and then redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Largely agree with comments above. I searched perhaps 15 SERP pages and found a few references, added them, rewrote article based on them. My sense is the term cinesexuality is highly similar to cinephilia, not clear whether it has been picked up by mainstream film theorists, but it is getting some attention from some critics (included, so why I am giving it a 'weak keep'). What I had trouble writing was what, exactly, is the difference between cinesexuality and cinephilia? The problem is that the term, as MacCormack wants people to use it, is almost a springboard for MacCormack's rather (extensive) and somewhat obscure theorizing about poststructuralist film philosophy -- which can bring in WP:OR -- so to keep that out, I think the strategy should be to stick to the term itself, avoid getting sucked into trying to explain her theories. There is a danger of WP:NEOLOGISM here, but this depends on whether the term catches on (and it might -- not sure). My sense is to revisit this topic a year from now and see how it plays, see whether more film critics are using the term, and to keep a watchful eye on this article to keep the original research out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:06, 20 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, BusterD (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a nonsense concept. If you really must, mention in Cinephillia and make this page a re-direct. Really and truly, Wikipedia is not a soap box for crank theories. Op47 (talk) 20:18, 3 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Ordóñez[edit]

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

Her father, husband and sons seem to have been notable bullfighters, but she does not seem to have done anything notable. While some wives of celebrities also become notable, we lack the sources to demonstrate this applies to her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPFAMILY. The one profile provided as a source does not seem substantial enough to save the article. TheBlueCanoe 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the nominator is quite right and I cannot see any reason to delay deleteing this. Op47 (talk) 20:20, 3 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. Closing as no consensus, because the last two keep !votes are not based upon guidelines or policies. The last !vote, qualifying article retention per "the underlying topic is sound" is ambiguous, and doesn't qualify topic notability. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo and the Spooky Scarecrow[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this Scooby-Doo special. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used to source the article, my WP:BEFORE found DVD Verdict] and The Morton Report. Weak keep and improve accordingly. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a few sentences of coverage. The main topic is a DVD release that this is included on - not this special. SL93 (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic being cited need not be the sole topic discussed in a source. That this was discussed in context to the DVD in which it was released is fine. Still "weak keep". Had this Scooby-Doo! project been discussed in the New York Times or Washington Post, then we'd have a strong keep. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but a few sentences does not equal significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scooby Doo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 196.xx who makes a very good point! ... - Joking aside DVDs like these are hard to source ... If we delete this we may aswell wipe out each and every Scooby-Doo article on here as most if not all are poorly sourced. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs improvement and citation but the underlying topic is sound. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:19, 8 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. A valid argument for deletion based upon Wikipedia guidelines or policies does not exist in the nomination. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sa-Deuce[edit]

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

Unreferenced. (I am making no comment on notability - WP:DDC applies.) Laun chba ller 22:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard wrote quite extensively about their debut album (p. 18, 20); there are also reviews in Vibe [43], [44]. The band was active in the mid-1990s, today is defunct and the online coverage is rather sparse. G-books search provides some decent sources. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remind the nominator that "Unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion at AfD. "Unreferenceable" after an adequate search, on the other hand, that is a very good reason. There have been too many of such nominations. The correct procedure in dealing with an unreferenced article is to try to fix it. As even the nominator says, deletion is not for cleanup--this means that one should try to clean up an inadequate article first, improving it in particular by finding references, and only go to AfD if you find it impossible to adequately do so. This is not my field, but based on the material shown by Vejvančický, this merits a speedy keep. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#1 (without prejudice against renomination on notability grounds), as the fact that an article is unreferenced is not an argument in itself for deletion. Vejvančický's sources clearly show that references are available to write an article for this subject. The purpose of deletion discussions is to discuss deletion. Deletion discussions are not to be used as a catalyst for cleanup, which is the position WP:DDC appears to be trying to advance. Mz7 (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an admin just needs to make a decision based on the above - three arguments for keeping this and no follow-up from the nominator for either the nomination or by way of rebuttal. That's fine of course (nominators aren't required to campaign for deletion) but there really hasn't been a strong justification for deletion put forward. The sources provided above would seem adequate and none of them have been challenged against the terms of WP:GNG. Can someone just close this? St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:40, 2 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) 16:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of e-commerce services in Singapore[edit]

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

This was deprodded with a comment that AfD would be more appropriate, so here we are. Appears to be a directory of mainly non-notable companies. Of those that do have articles, some are present in multiple countries, and the ones specific to Singapore are telecomms companies, not e-commerce companies. The criteria here are not tight enough to be a valid list article. Michig (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Those that meet the geographical criteria don't meet the technical criteria. Those that might meet the technical criteria are active in Singapore and elsewhere. That doesn't disqualify them, of course, but it doesn't make for a particularly strong list. It wouldn't seem to serve any particular purpose beyond being not-very-accurate but perhaps slightly interesting. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article, being solely a directory of 'e-commerce services in Singapore', is clearly a directory of businesses, most of them unnotable. Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:09, 2 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T.T. Quick[edit]

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

To this band's benefit, they were mostly active in the 80s, before the internet really took off. So I doubt there will be many reliable sources available online to judge this band's notability. There doesn't seem to be any coverage in a Google News archive search. It does look like they were signed with Megaforce Records and released 1 EP and 1 album on that label, but without any significant coverage to back it up, and without any records that charted nationally, I am not convinced of the band's notability. Note that the Megaforce Records article does not mention TT Quick at all. Does an EP count as an album? If not, then I don't see any of the criteria at WP:BAND satisfied. Mz7 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Mark Tornillo, the former lead singer, who seems to have a better case for notability. I don't really find much for T.T. Quick, but happy to look again if anyone can provide substantial coverage from independent reliable sources --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 2 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. postdlf (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Del Tarrant[edit]

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

A minor TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe stubify): notable character in a notable television series, Blake's 7. See Attwood, Tony; Davies, Kevin; Emery, Rob; Ophir, Jackie. (1994). "In Their Own Words". Blake's 7: The Programme Guide. England: Virgin Books. pp. 118–125. ISBN 0-426-19449-7 and other books on the series, such as Nazzaro, Joe; Wells, Sheelagh (1997). Blake's 7: The Inside Story. London: Virgin. ISBN 0-7535-0044-2. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including Terry Nation, The Essential Cult TV Reader, Solar Flares: Science Fiction in the 1970s and A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 2 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. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soolin[edit]

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

A sci TV character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe stubify): notable character in a notable television series, Blake's 7. See Attwood, Tony; Davies, Kevin; Emery, Rob; Ophir, Jackie. (1994). "In Their Own Words". Blake's 7: The Programme Guide. England: Virgin Books. pp. 118–125. ISBN 0-426-19449-7 and other books on the series, such as Nazzaro, Joe; Wells, Sheelagh (1997). Blake's 7: The Inside Story. London: Virgin. ISBN 0-7535-0044-2. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including Enterprising Women: Television Fandom and the Creation of Popular Myth, Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture and A History and Critical Analysis of Blake's 7. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 2 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 Cold (band). No support for keeping as a standalone article, but policy favors a redirect vice deletion so that those searching for the subject can more easily locate relevant information. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Marshall[edit]

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

Does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE independent of his band Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about his band, Cold (band), which already discusses his role in the band. There is no independent notability outside coverage of his band. Mz7 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom says it all Op47 (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cold (band). Most of the coverage in reliable sources covers the band, with the subject being mentioned. There is this short MTV article, but it's routine coverage regarding an injury the subject had. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 13 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 Withdrawn/Keep. - Despite my objections it seems the community deems this notable, Thanks The Whispering Wind for your major improvements to the article. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MetroBus (Bristol)[edit]

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

Proposed bus scheme, All imho WP:crystal & WP:TOOSOON, Fails GNG, I also don't object to redirecting/merging –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will be operational in summer of 2016! Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This can be deleted if it remains unchanged from its current state, as it is not sourced with little content, but many proposed and future projects have articles (the Silver Line in Washington DC has had an article since 2006 but only opened this year). If this can be adequately sourced and expanded, it should be kept. Or, it could be merged with a more appropriate article(a general article on transportation in Bristol, or Bristol itself) 331dot (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Buses in Bristol for now. Can always be split off again if and when it grows enough to warrant it but I can't see the need for a separate article at the moment. NewsBank and Google searches show quite a bit of coverage in local news sources (mainly the Bristol Post and BBC News Online for Bristol) but not more widely. Qwfp (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's inconceivable to me that a BRT project in the UK that gets as far as this one appears to be at, wouldn't already have been subject to lots of in-depth coverage already. And a cursory Google search reveals that yes, it's already well past the stage where even a complete cancellation wouldn't justify not having an article. Unless Wikipedia only deals with things that actually happen? Which I'm pretty sure is not the case. At least Bristol has a buses article though, lucky old Bristol - over in Kent they've yet to even learn what a bus is, according to Wikipedia. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed my reply since it's somewhat off-topic. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
over in Kent they've yet to even learn what a bus is is quite honestly the most dumbest comment I've heard yet!, On the Kent side we have Arriva Kent & Sussex, Arriva Kent Thameside, The Kings Ferry, Metrobus, Stagecoach South East and Southdown PSV So I would say we are aware of what a fucking bus is!, You should probably read up on the policies here before !voting based on its history & whatnot. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply] And since when were you the personification of Kent on Wikipedia? You've gone quite bonkers old chap. Take a deep breath. And relax.... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed my reply since it's somewhat off-topic. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

over in Kent they've yet to even learn what a bus is is quite honestly the most dumbest comment I've heard yet!,

On the Kent side we have Arriva Kent & Sussex, Arriva Kent Thameside, The Kings Ferry, Metrobus, Stagecoach South East and Southdown PSV So I would say we are aware of what a fucking bus is!,

You should probably read up on the policies here before !voting based on its history & whatnot. –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And since when were you the personification of Kent on Wikipedia? You've gone quite bonkers old chap. Take a deep breath. And relax.... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The way I see it, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't quite apply to this article. The bus company has already filed a massive cache of documents and plans with the Bristol City Council [45], including a map of one of the proposed routes [46]. These are definite proposals as opposed to "unverifiable speculation". Additionally, the bus routes have been highly controversial; environmentalists have complained that MetroBus construction would destroy valuable land. I'd argue that this article [47] from BBC Gloucestershire is at least a regional source and meets WP:AUD of the notability requirements for organizations. Given these sources and others mentioned above, I'd say the level of coverage is sufficient for a stand-alone article. Altamel (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imho I would say Crystal is still correct but we'll agree to disagree on that, The service doesn't even start till 2016 so I believe it's way too soon for it to warrant an article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I expanded the article and added some refs—would anyone care to have a second look? Altamel (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Once operational, this scheme will be notable and the fact that central government approval has been given to one route and that the planning applications for all three routes have first stage approval is sufficient for us to assume implementation. Deletion, only to recreate is inefficient, and most significantly, there is sufficient material in reliable sources to make a worthwhile and informative stub. Finally, even if the scheme does eventually get cancelled, sufficient reliable source coverage has probably been generated anyway to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:38, 3 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) Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rojda Aykoç[edit]

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

Turkish singer without a page in Turkish Wikipedia. She has had her hours of fame due to an absurd court ruling which was not executed. As a singer she has doubtful notability, maybe some among Turkish Kurds. Note: Please do not confuse her with the famous Turkish Kurd singer Rojin who doesn't have a page here! Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by the nominator: Please note that there is not even one reliable source used in the article. Hürriyet could be one but it only uses the news of an ailing Milliyet newspaper. Then, saying 'arrested for singing' ın the tıtle, but something different in the news text. Pure sensationalism. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. She has published seven albums, if that does not make her notable I don not know what does! Please note that her music has been broadcast on Iraqi Kurdish TV satellite channels many times. So she is quite well known even in Iraqi Kurdistan. If the main issue with the article is her court ruling then remove that part. We know that she is not Rojin, but that does not mean that she is unknown. Her music is traditional and folkloric and has nothing to do with politics. For instance her clip Le Buke is a famous folk song. Also not having a page in Turkish wikipedia is not a solid ground for deleting her article here. She sings in Kurdish not Turkish so it is reasonable to assume that she is not well known among Turks of Turkey. On the other hand, she does have an article in Kurdish wikipedia[48]. Vekoler (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

You somehow forgot to say that you created the article. You also recognise she is not a Rojin (although she chose a similar stage name). I appreciate that you accept that the absurd court adventure is not necessary here; whatever the Wiki articles say, if you have any insight to the situation of the Kurds in Turkey at present you will understand why I say 'absurd'. (The other day I read somewhere that the Turks of Rhodes and Kos were being intimidated not to speak Turkish. Dialectics, while one changes in one direction the neighbour goes the other way!) Anyhow, when are you going to make an article for Rojin? Does she have less albums or less court orders? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both for her musical output and public notability. She is a professional singer with a career history spanning several decades (there are many examples of her work on Youtube). The 2010 arrest and subsequent court case is a big part of the notability, so mention of it should remain - there should be no blp issues as long as it is carefully done. I don't see the point to Why should I have a User Name's mentions of Rojin or Turkish Wikipedia - lack of an article on one subject or on one Wikipedia is not a reason to delete an existing article on a different subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither her musical output nor her arrest raise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why do you think that ten albums, plus the fact that she was important enough cultural figure to be selected amongst other cultural figures of Kurdish origin to meet with the PM of Turkey, plus the arrest story that was widely reported, does not raise her to the level of notability? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:51, 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 02:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is really non notable. Op47 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Really"? Is this really the extent of your argument? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Op47 has scattered delete opinions in numerous AfDs. Most of those opinions are similar or identical [49],[50], or even shorter [51], in their brevity and absence of a reasoned argument. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Vekoler: and @Tiptoethrutheminefield: Does she meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG? Having a long career or lots of Youtube videos can't count. Of her seven albums, have any of them charted in a national chart, or met any other part of WP:MUSICBIO? Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Charted in a national chart" - that generates in me a bit of a smile and a bit of a groan. Let me explain why. How can she chart in a national chart if the country the singer lives in has had (until very recently) restrictive and oppressive language laws that did not allow her songs to be played in public, or even their titles - since they use an "illegal" alphabet (Kurdish) - to appear in print! Having a long career, releasing at least 10 albums, and having many tracks on YouTube ARE indicators of notability when the more normal indicators of notability are denied due to abnormal circumstances. Being significant and well-known enough to be invited to appear in numerous international concerts and festivals are also indicators of notability, as is being included in a small and select group of cultural figures invited to meet the leader of the country that has created those abnormal circumstances. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the blind are leading the blind, with invalid arguments all around. That there's no article in the Turkish wiki means nothing whatsoever, and that she made seven albums and has a lot of YouTube videos also means nothing. (Seven albums--with a record company? a notable one? were they released outside of Turkey and did they chart there, like in Germany or the Balkan?) Sorry, but politics and all that notwithstanding, nothing but reliable sources is going to save this article.
BTW, I disagree a bit with Boleyn, who I think was suggesting that the arrest needed to be removed from the lead to do away with the suggestion that she's notable for that reason: it may well be that the publicity generated by her arrest contains evidence that she in fact is notable for other reasons as well. In other words, let's not say BLP1E too quickly, and I urge editors to mine the archives and the references more carefully. The way this AfD is going right now I'd close it as a delete. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources, but we need a Kurdish speaker to extract any content from the first, and a Turkish speaker for the second:

Article (in Kurdish) about, and with link to, a 35-minute interview she gave on the Kurdish language service of Voice of Russia on 28 March 2014. [52]

Review (in Turkish) of her latest album, Kezi, along with a lot of background info on her career. [53]

Tiptoethrutheminefield ([[User:: talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 14:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Siirt News'? The local website is celebrating its first anniversary (see top left). Congratulations! --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been active in Turkey for longer than you have then? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:45, 9 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 without prejudice for its failure to meet WP:NF. Recreation or undeletion okay if and or when notability can be established. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up: Balloon to the Rescue[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, the only thing notable about this film is that it was terrible (and not even well-known and terrible). I deleted the negative comments from the article because they were unsourced but you can look back at the earlier versions. Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources like Tooncrap are not reliable sources. The film gathered minimal coverage from sources of questionable reliability as a knock-off of Up [54][55][56]. Overall, I'm not satisfied this film meets WP:NFILM. Mz7 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vídeo Brinquedo. I found a review by Film School Rejects, but that's the only truly reliable source I could find. For the most part this was pretty much just ignored by both English and Spanish language RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 2 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. Michig (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Khan[edit]

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

This is a very common name but I cannot find anything that suggests the person meets WP:GNG. My suspicion is WP:PROMO. Sitush (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability, just a competent person, we are to believe--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure he's good at his job but we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for a subject to be notable. I can't see that the sources provided or the sources available get us there. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see WP:RS WP:Third party sources. Fails general notability. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:30, 2 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. After two relistings, guideline based consensus to delete outweighs keep based on a) insufficient coverage in reliable sources and b) being an "interesting chap" is not a BLP criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cowell[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that has been here for nearly four years without sources. From the first ten pages of Google results and first five pages of GNews results I didn't find enough to convince me of notability. This appears to be a press release. There are a few brief mentions in Billboard: [57], [58], [59], [60]. This from a local newspaper contains the most in-depth coverage I could find. Michig (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting chap; he's doing a show in LA at the moment with Raiding the rock vault - [61]

Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)

11:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely unsourced. As you created the article with significant content but no sources and added details such as date of birth, could you indicate where you found those details please? Thanks. --Michig (talk) 08:46, 13 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 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Isn't it clear that there is no consensus to delete this article? - suggest it is now closed $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 16:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was relisted per procedures stated at WP:RELIST. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes the notability question is a close call. Not in this case. Op47 (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Billboard is usually considered reliable as a source. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has suggested otherwise, and that isn't the issue being discussed here. The Billboard coverage tells us that he was the MD of publishing/plugging company Rive Droite, and then quit to start Private and Confidential Music, neither of which appear notable, and that's about all we have. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Billboard is usually notable, but in this case the coverage is not substantial enough to help us build a coherent biography of this living person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No !keep votes after two relistings. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Partnership of Business Schools[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY, and has been tagged as such for over six years. Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CORP. The 'IPBS' does not have any significant depth of coverage, or any for that matter that I could find online. One of the sources is a dead link, another is to a member of the 'IPBS' and the third and final citation is again a dead link. With no media coverage and no independent sourcing for what seems to be a fairly trivial organisation, I am fairly confident in a delete Valiant Patriot (talk) 08:17, 2 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 GMA Network. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DWWQ[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not cite any reliable sources. Only links to the Facebook page and live streaming are given. There is no explanation of the notability of this radio station, so it fails WP:BCAST. I can't find any reliable sources on my own [62]. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing improvements are sorely needed here, but the base notability that a radio station has to establish to qualify for a Wikipedia article is the fact of being duly licensed by its appropriate regulatory authority — as long as it actually exists as a real radio station, and isn't a hoax or some random person's home Icecast webstream, it's entitled to some kind of coverage in Wikipedia (the only legitimate question being whether it should have a standalone article or be a redirect to a larger related topic, such as a list of radio stations in its area or an article about its programming source.) So this could stand alone as an article with the ((refimprove)) tag added, or it could be redirected to GMA Network — but absent evidence that it actually doesn't even exist, it can't just be deleted outright. Redirect to GMA Network, without prejudice against recreation in the future if the sourcing improves. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines Op47 (talk) 20:37, 3 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is Jonas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. The current article's only sources for the song's notability are two "best Weezer songs" lists in which the song appears.

At the time of nomination, the sources are: the Weezer biography (which predictably covers almost every Weezer song, and does not prove this song's notability); the official Weezer site (fails " sources are independent of the artist and label" requirement of WP:NSONGS); two lists of the best Weezer songs (unimpressive, considering the narrow scope of such lists); a source reporting that My Chemical Romance played the song with Weezer once (possibly not even worth mentioning in the article, and not grounds for notability); a source reporting that the song is included in a video game (not grounds for notability); a source reporting that the Thermals covered the song (not grounds for notability); and a source reporting that a (non-notable) Weezer covers band covered the song (duh; not grounds for notability).

I think the article should be redirected to Weezer (1994 album), where the subject can be covered sufficiently. Popcornduff (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Popcornduff (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per arguments I've given at Talk:My Name Is Jonas#Merge proposal. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not a huge fan of Weezer, so I pulled up the song to see I'd recognize it as an initial indicator of notability. I certainly recognized it - right away, and not just because of the Lonelygirl15 character. I am sure I've not heard most of Weezer's singles in comparison. Like the ones, if any, from that album with the fat guy from LOST on it. WTF was that about? Anyway, so I guess this song is a "fan favorite."[63] Though not a single, the song does seem to be sufficiently notable to merit a separate article. Remember this is one of many articles covering this band, and its a logical organization scheme that has been developed over time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent: It's definitely a well-known song to people who've heard of Weezer, but we need multiple non-trivial sources to prove its notability independent of the album it comes from. I also don't see anything in the article that's useful that couldn't be covered in the album article. I'm not sure what your point is about a "logical organization scheme that has been developed over time"; it seems to me a more logical organization would be to remove redundant parts. Popcornduff (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already multiple non-trivial sources for the song that are independent of the album (at least, not from album reviews). And what about "userfulness"? That same argument could be used for many articles that would survive AFD. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the "logical organization" point. Popcornduff (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for "multiple non-trivial sources", the excerpt from Music: What Happened is so far the only convincing non-trivial source in the article IMO. We need more than one. Popcornduff (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the About.com and Diffuser articles? In fact, it's the only non-single song listed in the song ranking in the Diffuser article. Surely what's already cited in the article must give it some kind of significance. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they only appear in those articles in lists of Weezer songs, I consider those sources trivial. As I said in the article's talk page, if those were lists of the best 90s songs, for example, they would have more weight. Perhaps other editors will disagree. Popcornduff (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wainer Lusoli[edit]

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

Article about a scientist and research fellow, cited almost entirely to his own work. The Google Scholar results (for what they're worth) largely relate back to his own papers. This doesn't demonstrate at all that he meets WP:PROF. The author is honest enough to say in the final section that "he is not a public figure, as his work has not received broadcast media attention". Overall he is a researcher doing research and this is a only a CV of someone who hasn't had a significant impact yet on academia or the wider world. Sionk (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—An h-index of ~20 is at the low end of demonstrating a significant impact in their field, but it's good enough (in my opinion) to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marie Currie and Albert Einstein may be notable. This person is not. Op47 (talk) 20:39, 3 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. Sandstein 21:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Promoções[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. No established notability, totally unsourced. Long-standing maintenance issues since 2010. Beagel (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lots of promotional material and exceptional claims with no references whatsoever. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Op47 (talk) 20:41, 3 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. There are only three votes including the nomination, and it does not make sense to make one more relist, but the article can be recreated provided reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opal Bonfante[edit]

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

Long-term unsourced BLP. Doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion. Very little coverage found. Michig (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if not sourced during the discussion period. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. That clear enough. Op47 (talk) 20:43, 3 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Betowski[edit]

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

BLP that has been here for 8 years without any sources. He appears to be an artist who has exhibited, but that doesn't seem enough to justify an encyclopedia article. I couldn't find coverage of him in reliable sources. Michig (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Keep He is mentioned in lots of respectable refs, even making it into the German Lonely Planet guide to Cornwall, and Country Life thought he was "well-known" in 1992. But for extended coverage I can only find this from the regional paper online. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 2 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 per discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scalar programming[edit]

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

Tagged for no references x 4+ years & disputed accuracy x 5+ years. Talk page comments reflect marked doubt about authenticity. Recommend deletion as unsourced and failing WP:GNG. – S. Rich (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The term of art is far more common in optimization theory (e.g., Invex Functions and Generalized Convexity in Multiobjective Programming), but that's a completely different topic than this one. Restricting my gscholar search to "scalar programming languages", I get all of five hits. While one of these is an IEEE Computer article, the phrase just never caught on. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect too Array programming#Scalar languages. As Lesser Cartographies says, this term never really caught on. I could not find in-depth RS to support notability. The sources I have seen always seem to use it only in contrast to vector or array programming. It is a term in the literature, however, so we could create a redirect. Array programming#Scalar languages seems the best target. --Mark viking (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Array programming#Scalar languages per Mark viking. James500 (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by OP – Can I assume that you folks know about the subject matter? (My knowledge is nil and I AFD's based on the lack of references.) If so, I'll take your comments to heart and do a WP:BLAR on the article. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with WP:BLAR. The topic is in my field, but it is not my area of expertise. That said, I am confident that I would be able to find cites for scalar programming if it was an actual term of art. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:34, 7 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. Michig (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Rail Heritage Trust[edit]

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

Not notable. No in depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears properly sourced with third party sources. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only third party sources are stock lists, which are not significant in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article lacks the required depth, but so do most of those in the List of New Zealand railway museums and heritage lines. Maybe it is time the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains took a look. I have added their group to the articles talk page which should make it appear in their Afd alerts. I'll also do a search to see if anything useful can be added to bring the quality up. NealeFamily (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was created on August 15. WP:BEFORE C2 states, "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.", and this is not a high priority topic. Google images show that the group has been getting attention, including one website in co.uk, and the comment in the article about getting four workers from a "Work and Income" job scheme sounds like something that the people in NZ know about and is likely to have sourcing, as per WP:NRVE. Article needs to be watched for copyvio. What is the business structure? What is OCI Communications that is a partial copyright holder of the official website? Unscintillating (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[64]. Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's being claimed as 'significant coverage' we may as well give up now. The only mention of the organisation is as the employer of an expert being quoted on the actual story. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the http://www.societies.govt.nz/ and http://www.business.govt.nz/ references recently added to the article are primary sources.

Noted - I used them to establish the legal creation date and the legal relationship with the company - they don't prove notability. On the issue of the AfD: I am a bit perplexed over whether this entity should be in a stand alone article or not (notwithstanding the WP:BEFORE from Unscintillating) because by itsself the organisation does not appear to meet the threshhold. In the context of all New Zealand railway museums, if it were within an article about them then in combination it does. The problem then becomes the size of the article to cover the topic - splitting them up makes sence, but then not all the individual museums are notable. A dilemma. NealeFamily (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could create a List of railway museums in New Zealand based on merging the bulk of the articles in Template:NZR_Heritage, many of which make the current article look well-sourced?

List of New Zealand railway museums and heritage lines already exists and has links to the various articles. NealeFamily (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something with more comprehensive coverage (i.e. a concatenation of the current articles); but yes, that's a much better title though. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough. Op47 (talk) 20:48, 3 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 and move to Blanc-Sablon (disambiguation). Not a strong consensus but the relist didn't result in any further input. No consensus to delete. Michig (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blanc-Sablon (homonymy)[edit]

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

It appears that the only town with this name is the one in Quebec. I couldn't find reference to any others. So, this page isn't really needed - it makes more sense to mention all of these topics at the article on the town, Blanc-Sablon, Quebec. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, ignore the improper title, which has nothing to do with this nomination. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We generally do not have disambiguation pages listing names of things in a city that share the name of the city. These are more like subtopics than ambiguous concepts. bd2412 T 14:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article about Blanc-Sablon disambiguation is very useful to users. Very often, these disambiguation pages help me in writing articles on Wikipedia, or search further. I publish few dozen articles on Wikipedia related to disambiguation topics; and the result is great. We must avoid the strict application of the rule, indiscriminately. Otherwise, the Wikipedia rule concerning erasing disambiguation articles must be questioned and be changed. The readers'best interest must prevail.User:Veillg1 19:30, 25 August 2014 (CEST)

For reference, on English Wikipedia, we use the word "disambiguation" - homonymy is not really a word in English. If you want to keep a page listing these on your user page to help you write articles, you're welcome to do that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Another abysmal pretense at a disambiguation page from Veillg1. older ≠ wiser 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Blanc-Sablon (disambiguation). There are enough legitimate entries to warrant a dab page (even though all are mentioned at the base name page Blanc-Sablon (which redirects to Blanc-Sablon, Quebec -- and that might merit renaming per Canada naming conventions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Blanc-Sablon (disambiguation). The "homonymy" is a cognate of the French word used on WP for "disambiguation." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 2 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Bengal Tigers[edit]

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

Unknown sports team. No reliable sources found. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CORP. Subject matter is clearly lacking in depth of coverage and no sources at all are provided in the article. Valiant Patriot (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:RS and is not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hando Tamm[edit]

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

Non-notable artist, fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ARTIST - the only remotely valid source establishing notability is a ten-question interview in a local newspaper from 2007, [65]. Allow the recreation of the article without prejudice, though, should the notability increase/be established. --Sander Säde 07:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A working, exhibiting artist (like many others) but falls short of the WP:ARTIST notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no evidence of notability. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 9 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 Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafar[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional place. Has three references: starwars.com (primary/affiliated), Wookieepedia (self-published), and an interview (short mention, already covered at the page about the film). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and partial merge of whatever's sourcable to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Outside that topic, there is no notability for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

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, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect largely in-universe, does not appear to have any notability outside of the Star Wars universe. I'm in the process of cleaning up some of the other Star Wars fictional planet articles. Some might need to be taken to AfD as well. --Daniel (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as this content better suited to Wookiepedia, no out of universe notability. JJ98 (Talk) 23:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Barely any sourced content to merge. --Michig (talk) 07:41, 9 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) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara County Park Ranger[edit]

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

nonnotable local park authority, no refs other than organization. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is for a public agency similar to hundreds of police and park ranger pages currently found on Wikipedia, it is for an agency of over 250 employees, 1,400 volunteers and with visitors in the tens of thousands each year. If this page merits deletion than so does countless similar articles of this type. ([[User talk:CaptainKona (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)]])[reply]

Keep - I see no reason that this article would be nominated for deletion as it is public agency with a $67 million annual budget, is a multi-sourced article, with more than a dozen news media links on the agency, and whose facilities are used by countless people each year.MKP2106 (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Move/Keep, see below) Even if we remove the puffery ("Santa Clara County Park’s five decade legacy of providing outstanding recreational opportunities in beautiful natural locations"), the subject fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. All of the references in the main body of the article (in other words, the first 10 references) are self-referential. The remainder, for the "In the news" section, do include half-a-dozen references from the San Jose Mercury News, which is a regionally significant Reliable Source, but the coverage is not about the park rangers; it either doesn't mention them at all [66] [67] or else mentions them in passing. [68] There is a little bit of actual coverage from small hyper-local papers like the Gilroy Dispatch [69], which does not satisfy GNG in my opinion. I see no point in a redirect to Santa Clara County, California since that is where people would go anyhow looking for information about this agency. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in response to the claim that Wikipedia has "countless similar articles of this type": I could not find any other articles about county park rangers at Category:County government agencies in California or Category:County law enforcement agencies of California. In fact the only article I found about park rangers was National Park Service Ranger, which seems a little more notable than a county-level agency. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It should be noted that nominator was correct at the time of nomination to say "no refs other than organization". The marginally-related articles now listed as "In the news" were added after nomination. There's nothing wrong with that - adding sources is a perfectly legitimate way to try to improve an article to the point of getting kept. I was just pointing out that the nominator's original statement was true. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the text described as "puffery" has been elided from the article as copyvio. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: -MelanieN, I hate to provide this list to refute the, there are not numerous similar law enforcement pages, these are just from California and show many LE agencies of smaller note that have articles. I hesitate as this provides other sources for persons of an ideological motivation to figuratively burn books they do not like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_agencies_in_California As the person who nominated this for deletion as created articles much less notability; “California Massage Therapy Council "dedicated to happy endings for everyone"”, “Northern California Innocence Project”, “Hayward Gay Prom”, and many others, I question the motivation to remove law enforcement articles. Inspectorabsinthe (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list, but I don't feel refuted. The list shows that there is an article for California State Park Rangers, but I don't see a single article about county park rangers on that list - except for this article. In any case, the issue is not "well, other agencies have articles" (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). The issue is that any individual agency must meet WP:GNG to have an article, and this one doesn't. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department To give this discussion some context, if Santa Clara County were a U.S. State, in population it would be larger than 13 other states. It should be obvious that we don't remove governmental units from the encyclopedia just because they fail notability criteria. This type of inclusion is limited by WP:DUE, yet the nomination ignores WP:ATD.
My main problem with stating "Keep" is that I can't verify the name of this topic. For example, a Google web search on ["Santa Clara County Park Ranger" site:.gov] turns up nothing. The MOU with the Santa Clara County Park Rangers Association names only "Santa Clara County" along with three job titles which are covered. The website which according to our article is the "official" website seems only to cover Junior rangers. My ~~limited research skills~~ preliminary research certainly ~~don't~~ doesn't prove that there is no verifiable topic here, but since the Parks department is currently a red link, there is potentially nothing lost by moving this topic to the larger entity. There are 29 28 parks to be covered, described as one of the larger sets of county parks in California.
We also see from this article that Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors is a redlink, which is another topic of opportunity for South Bay editors. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department and rework as appropriate per Unscintillating. Government departments of this size are likely to receive significant coverage. There is quite a bit in GBooks. They are also referred to as "Santa Clara County Parks Department" and "Santa Clara County Parks". James500 (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from that, an obvious redirect like this should never be brought to AfD. James500 (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an "obvious redirect"; it is a suggested move to a new topic, necessitating a major rewrite. Is someone volunteering to do that major rewrite? If the person who is going to do the rewrite has not been identified, this article should be deleted (very little of it would merge into the new article anyhow, the article would have to be 80-90% new material) - and someday someone who feels like it can write a new article about the Park and Rec department. If we do the move but no-one does the rewrite, then we have moved from the current situation (an article about a non-notable topic) to a worse situation: an article about a non-notable topic which also has an incorrect title. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The present page name is an obvious redirect to Santa Clara County and will never be deleted. WP:R is very, very, very strict and will not allow that. It isn't a move to a new topic or an incorrect title because the rangers division is part of the department. Deleting an article because it requires a major rewrite would violate WP:IMPERFECT. Nor would it be consistent with that policy to demand that anyone promise to perform the rewrite. I could just advise you to do it yourself (WP:SOFIXIT). It isn't obvious that there is "very little" mergeable content, but even if there was, that isn't good enough. There has to be zero mergeable content (WP:PRESERVE).This article will obviously fix itself in the fullness of time and should just be allowed to develop. James500 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, it will not require a major rewrite to make the article acceptable. You could write a new introduction, or stubify the article, in a matter of minutes. James500 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I often have rewritten/refocused articles when I thought they deserved to be renamed and kept. In this case, my !vote remains "delete", so I won't be volunteering. And in spite of all the "keep" talk here, I don't see anyone else volunteering either. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 18 minutes from start to finish. James500 (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have an article which is entirely about the park rangers, except for the title and the lead. Not even a list of the parks, much less any history of the park and rec department, the management, or any of the things one would expect to see in an article about the department. Those are things I would have considered necessary, if I were trying to refocus the article to be about the department. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems that can be fixed by editing, such as lack of balance, are not grounds for deletion. Our editing policy makes that very clear. James500 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. Large enough for its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: the article has been renamed to "Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department". --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the new name to Santa Clara County, California, and redirect the old name there too. none of the refs provided (added after i afd'd it) show notability for the parks and rec department, only that it exists as part of the county. The agency can have a sentence or two at the county article. this is not a rewrite that qualifies as an article. no prejudice against building up from the redirect if any significant refs are ever found. I agree it has a large budget, but wikipedia is not a directory of every government agency on earth. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the sources are cited in the article at the moment is irrelevant. What matters is that they exist, or are likely to exist, in GBooks and elsewhere. That is how we determine notability. Not by looking at the citations presently included in the article and nothing else. James500 (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There do appear to be some sources for the Park and Rec department, although nobody here can be bothered to cite any. I am planning to rewrite the article over the next day or two, to refocus it on the Park and Rec department. I don't understand why some people will recommend keeping a poorly conceived and badly sourced article without doing anything to improve it, but since that seems to be the developing consensus here, I will do what I can to make it into a decent Wikipedia article. If I succeed in that, I will change my !vote to keeping the renamed and refocused article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment The statement "none of the refs provided...show notability for the parks and rec department", makes me wonder if the nominator is expecting the sourcing to show wp:notability to be included in the article. This is a WP:SOFIXIT problem. Unscintillating (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(edit conflict) Comment I find the comment "...if any significant refs are ever found" to be evidence that the nominator has not made a WP:BEFORE D1 check on this topic, including Google newspapers, Google scholar, and Google books. Unscintillating (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the moved and re-targeted article about the Parks and Recreation Department. It is now a proper article. The minimum cleanup that was made necessary by the move: all new categories and a new infobox. Material I added because it's now a different article about a different agency: a history section (which provided the necessary independent sources) and a list of the parks, with wikilinks back and forth as appropriate. Material I added just because if you're going to do something you might as well do it well: images. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, I could have looked for refs on the department, only looked at what was provided, assuming an editor interested in showing notability would actually do that. thanks to MN for doing what i didnt.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologize; you were correct. You nominated an article about the Park Rangers - a subject which was and is non-notable. Nobody here has provided any additional refs about the Park Rangers, or any evidence that the Park Rangers are notable or deserve an article. On the contrary, your nomination basically resulted in a consensus recommendation of "merge/redirect" to an article about the Park and Rec department - an article which did not exist at the time, but does now. --MelanieN (talk) 06:09, 7 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mya Byrne[edit]

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

I'm not a WP:BAND expert, but it doesn't seem like this article is any more than a puff piece. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles linked to in the article are insufficient to demonstrate notability, and there doesn't appear to be much other coverage around. --Michig (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the poor editing of the article and sources sections thus far, some of the sources are indeed notable (eg the Illinois Times and the D'Addario endorsement). And, post-announcement, Mya has received some additional notable press in 2014: a SingOut magazine / WFDU-FM radio interview [70]; NJ alternative music Aquarian Weekly's mention of her as one of the 30 most promising acts of 2014 [71] and, perhaps more tangentially in terms of subject but speaking to notability, her poetry was just featured in the Advocate: [72]. This information can be added to the article by anyone as part of a much-needed edit overhaul. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I have gone ahead and cleaned up/edited the article's references, adding links and marking uncited assertions as 'citation required,' and moving dead links and unclear sources to 'talk'. A few of the article's assertions (5) remain marked 'citation required' but a very significant number (15+) are now cited with notable, verifiable press mentions. Strikes me that the subject is increasingly notable and on the basis of that complaint the article is thus worth keeping. Can anyone speak in more detail to the other complaints on the VfD, ie use of external links, WP:COI besides the constant concern of self-editing, etc.?-- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:57, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems much better after RyanFreisling's improvements, thank you. Assuming no other objections I am comfortable with this AfD being withdrawn. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CombatWombat42, for the kind feedback. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:02, 5 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Moriarty[edit]

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

No references found. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the usual searches, I search Newspapers.com and HighBeam and found nothing. The external link is of no help. I am One of Many (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure what Northamerica is waiting for, but there are only delete "votes" and no keeps. This is obviously not notable. Op47 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage or other evidence of notability found. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable third party sources on a google search. No significant coverage. Fails GNG. Btw Op47 you said "votes"?? Please remember Afd is "!vote" that means Afd is not vote. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said votes in quotes because it is not a vote per se, I just couldn't think of a succinct way of describing what people do. Op47 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced biography with no indication of notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for there are no sources to accompany this biography. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RX-75 Guntank[edit]

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

Appears to be almost exclusively in-universe description of a fictional vehicle. Little reference towards real world notability. Daniel (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are the problem here, Gundam fans might be upset here but unless we have the sources we cant keep the article. I would recommend that this be merged to wikia if anyone wishes to keep the contents. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not passing WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable sources. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:15, 4 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. Michig (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MS-09[edit]

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

Entirely in-universe description of a fictional vehicle. Appears to have zero real world notability. Daniel (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fully un-sourced WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as not passing WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable sources. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced, non-notable. PamD 10:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:16, 4 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 18:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Chafak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as most Google hits are social media or related websites. The Banner talk 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. There are sources in the article, and more on Google news in Spanish and other languages. The first one I checked, [73], is from Barcelona and leads off with a picture of the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Represented her country at the indisputably notable Miss Universe. That is usually sufficient for a stub article. Mabalu (talk) 09:58, 3 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Anders Opstad[edit]

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

Not sure how this person is notable with just saying a broker and a salesperson. Can't seem to find anything about him online either. Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The version prior to this IP edit did have references. They are deadlinks but a search on the subject's name at Dagens Næringsliv does turn up several 2007-8 articles. However, this appears to fall under WP:BLP1E and there is no evidence of lasting biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He probably got an article because of his involvement in the Terra Securities scandal (E24). I am not so happy about redirecting individuals to scandals, but that's an option. Iselilja (talk) 19:44, 3 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.