< 3 September	5 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 redirect to Gabriel Knight. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Holmes (composer)[edit]

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

Biography of a living person lacking appropriate sourcing, reads like an autobiography/promotional advertisement of sorts. Silverfish8088 (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Gabriel Knight, with which he's best associated, or to his wife and collaborator, Jane Jensen. The topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) He did not have more than passing hits in a video game reliable sources search (as Robert or Bob Holmes, and those hits were in relation to Gabriel Knight or Jensen. Redirects are cheap, so Knight is a good target. Also just removed some copyvio from the article, copypasted from [1]. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Gabriel Knight, all I could find was a little coverage in one article. Sam Walton (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: When there is no clear redirect, and the subject itself does not appear to be notable (in the encyclopedic sense) due to a distinct lack of sources my inclination is to delete, not redirect. Silverfish8088 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A simple search shows that he is clearly related to the GK project (it's the main hits for his name), so I'm not sure why you'd say it's not a good redirect target czar ♔ 11:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright infringement by RHaworth (non-admin closure). Lugia2453 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RPIIT[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 23:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Junelyn Ellis[edit]

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

An actress who from the look of it has just done one role on a show and that is it. Can't find that much on her either. Wgolf (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - She has performed only one sentence worth until now. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep - more references required. Her imdb page is genuine but does not constitute a wikipedia page.PotassiBot (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nor is a reliable source. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMDb isn't a reliable source. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No evidence of WP:Notability, Fails WP:NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete A Google search turned up nothing to meet WP:GNG, and claim to notability is based on one role, doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability despite doing sweeps of international, Philippines, and New Zealand news sources, as well as entertainment publications.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete not notable NealeFamily (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Per above. Imdb does not constitute notable coverage, and there is nothing in the news about this actress. Maybe later if she gets more coverage, but WP:NOTNOW. Upjav (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Murray Lee Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article should have been GONE in 2005, but no action was taken after the VfD held that year. Subject is entirely non-notable, in particular WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Nothing here at all worth merging, not sourced anyway, so delete. Safiel (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - I agree. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Me too. Freikorp (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm surprised this has survived; a new article of this ilk would surely go by CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No notability.--XANIA - ЗAНИA ^{Wikipedia talk |} ^{Wikibooks talk} 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I looked for an article on the Carter family as a possible redirect target, but although there is a Family of Barack Obama article, there don't generally seem to be articles on the family of presidents, and if there were, a brother-in-law would hardly be worth a mention. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Rosalynn Carter, where he is already briefly mentioned. PWilkinson (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - How is closing & saying "should be merged somewhere" a sensible idea ? .... Not sure how on earth it survived in 05 but doesn't look that way now ... Anyway fails BIO & GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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. with Western Front (disambiguation) moved to Western Front after deletion. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Western Front[edit]

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

I don't see any reason for this article. A "western front" is just a superficial variation of a "military front", and there isn't enough continuity between the western fronts in the First and Second World Wars to have an article for both of them in addition to the individual articles Western Front (World War I) and Western Front (World War II).

Currently, this article is just a two-sentence lede plus summaries of those two articles and a medium-length bibliography, so I don't see anything to merge into another article. Deleting the article will allow us to move Western Front (disambiguation) to take its place.

I'm not entirely sure I'm in the right place, but I don't think the talk page would get enough attention. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete and move dab page here per nom. No brainer. It's just a subset of the dab page anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if I understand the problem here. The article is about the western front. As there were two significant western fronts (WWI and WWII) it then goes on to point to those particular articles. Would it be better to merge the other two articles into this one? Do we really want more disambig pages? They're a pain in the arse - like every time I want to read something about Georgia I get treated like a kid and get asked whether I mean Georgia or the US state of Georgia. --XANIA - ЗAНИA ^{Wikipedia talk |} ^{Wikibooks talk} 12:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Well, right now we essentially have two disambig pages: Western Front and Western Front (disambiguation). That's a problem in itself, but on top of that, Western Front isn't a good disambig page, since it only points to two of the possible meanings (Western Front (World War I) and Western Front (World War II)) and includes way too much summary about those two. So I suggest we scrap it and have Western Front (disambiguation) take over. That would cut two disambig pages down to one, which sounds like something you'd approve of.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete as per nom Thank you for clarifying that. In that case I support the proposal.--XANIA - ЗAНИA ^{Wikipedia talk |} ^{Wikibooks talk} 11:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete "Western Front" itself isn't a significant concept apart from existing content about each of the world wars. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reduce to a dab-page -- Or rather move the dabpage here. The subject is a likely search term, but the article is not a useful one. Even a WWII article can hardly be a satisfactory one, as there was only a front 1939-40 and 1944-5. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Srnec (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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. Speedy deleted as copyright infringement. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Higher Education Department[edit]

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

Sounds like it could be a advertisement. I'm not sure where this is going either. It says it is part of a government college but since there is nothing backing it up-I'm not sure. Wgolf (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete as unquestionable copyright infringement of this. Tagged as WP:G12. This is a legitimate government department so a clean version would be notable. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per above, blatant WP:CV. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete per G12 per above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paige VanZant[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA with only 1 top tier fight (a loss in January, 2013). Has signed with the UFC to help start their new strawweight division, but assuming she'll get enough top tier fights is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Article was created WP:TOOSOON, but no objection to the article being saved to user space for when/if she meets NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userfy Part of a series of articles written upon UFC signing - definitely WP:TOOSOON for WP:MMANOT. I would vote delete but within a month she would have 2 of 3.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not notable - Clearly fails all current criteria. Ppt1973 (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete She fails to meet WP:NMMA and I agree about WP:TOOSOON. Personally, I would have waited to put this article up for AfD until after her UFC fight. It's true she still won't meet NMMA, but a victory would probably ensure she would get a third top tier fight (yes, that's WP:CRYSTALBALL). I have no objections if someone wants to userfy this article in the meantime. Papaursa (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Not sure about the arguments above but VanZant clearly meets the general notability guideline with reliable independent nontrivial sources here and here and here and here, plus substantive mentions here and here and here, with additional sources possible. She's the youngest fighter in UFC league, several well-covered matches not just in US but Canada, with much media coverage; article should have the bare references fleshed out a bit (clothed?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- - Still fails current criteria in place for MMA notability.Ppt1973 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - But she meets the GNG. Wikipedia Notability (sports) guideline says The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria.... Since she meets GNG, she's a keeper.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Actually, she doesn't meet GNG. The first 4 sources you mentioned are all announcements of her first UFC fight (i.e., routine promotional coverage) while the other sources are one line mentions. None of the sources provide significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - I agree that she does not meet GNC. There is a clear distinction between MMA promotional announcements and independent coverage.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        So I suppose you people would similarly say that this was a mere one-line mention. The announcements of upcoming fights were articles in major news sources, so it is hard for me to see why anybody would consider them as trivial.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC) And I suppose you'd dismiss this source too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Suppose this source would constitute another dismissable mention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        
        While pageview statistics are not an official criterion of notability, they usually indicate it, based on my experience as a wiki-contributor, and VanZant gets 200+ pageviews per day, which to me suggests notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 3 sources you added are another announcement of her first UFC fight (it's still routine sports promotion no matter how many sources it appears in), a site copying one of her Facebook posts, and a blog. Still nothing to meet GNG. As far as pageviews go, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Mdtemp (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fail to see how this article which features VanZant prominently in the headline plus show her photo plus has a video report on her could possibly constitute "routine sports promotion". Or this source with VanZant in headline. This source is owned by Gannett and discusses VanZant in depth. And I fail to see how an article in the Toronto Sun which has VanZant's name in the headline could constitute 'routine coverage'. That Sports Life Magazine based part of their report from a Facebook source does not invalidate the report -- its editors would not have allowed that story if they did not think it was credible. About pageviews, yes, we know the rules, but if you ever develop a track record here at Wikipedia, you'll know that it is rare that high-pageview articles get deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signing with the UFC, which is what the coverage is about (or announcing her first fight), is not enough to show notability. It's clear you and I disagree on this. I don't know why I need to develop a track record (or what that even means), but I think it's more interesting that you're the only editor that thinks the article should be kept.Mdtemp (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability stems from the guideline: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. It is that simple. VanZant has it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails MMA notability criteria and coverage appears to be routine sports reporting so fails GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ally Hilfiger[edit]

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

The daughter of Tommy Hilfiger. Appeared in one play when she was a child and in one season of a reality show when she was 18. She has also created a minor art exhibit. And been to rehab. Fails notability guidelines WP:N/WP:GNG, and mentions of her in news sources are just that- brief gossip mentions, not significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Too much of a rich girl puffery. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This was a difficult call, but the totality of coverage from multiple sources adds up in my book. I disagree that this does not achieve notability guidelines, but again it is an understandably close and difficult call to make. Silverfish8088 (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- If the only notable effort was the one-season reality show in 2003, perhaps her bio could be mentioned at that page. But we would never consider creating/keeping articles about random civilians who are in rehab or make one-time art shows. Children of celebrities don't inherit notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I believe I understand your concerns, and I've already made my position on this clear. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Silverfish8088 (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTINHERITED and Fails WP:NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gayathri Khemadasa[edit]

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

Not yet notable. Scored music for one non-notable film; has begun writing an opera. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - my first thought was surely this article needs bringing up to date. Has the opera been finished yet? Are there any reviews? Has she given any recitals and have these been reviewed? Any more compositions? But I don't find any new information, and even her own Facebook page makes no claims of anything recent. The first three sources all have some substance, but they are based on interviews. The fourth is just a passing mention. With regret (because this isn't nearly as bad as some of the puffy self-promoting articles about classical musicians), I don't see how it meets any of WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and/or WP:COMPOSER. --Stfg (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This and this seem to suggest the opera might have been completed and performed. No view on the reliability of the sources (the first ties back to the subject's website), or at this stage notability in general, though. Seems to be very much a minor work by, at this point in her career, a minor composer. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, the first one puzzles me. What does it mean to say that someone will compose an opera for performance on Friday? Yes, the second one is written as if the composition is complete. Both are announcements of performances, though, and hardly in-depth. Any reviews? --Stfg (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I've found quite a bit of 'evidence' -- of admittedly varying degrees of reliability -- that it has been performed (see also [2], [3] and a youtube clip....) but certainly no reviews of those performances. [Note to closer: my comments shouldn't be taken as a 'keep' view; not at all. I'm presently very much inclined towards deletion.] --Mkativerata (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Miniatures Page[edit]

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

Webpage without a clear assertion of notability. The fact that the founder worked for a notable company does not transfer notability to the site. Further, the only independent reliable sources cited are directory listings, so the article fails the WP:GNG requirement of substantial coverage in independent sources. (There are also citations to forum posts at the site, which are neither reliable nor independent.) —C.Fred (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:GNG as there is no independent coverage. Thomas.W ^talk 18:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete : nn If references to its masthead are not reliable, then the entire thing needs to go. Crow the Saint (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Devatas (Vedanta)[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of Deva (Hinduism). (WP:OR based on WP:PRIMARY sources) Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not delete Mr. Redtigerxyz I had seen Deva (Hinduism) after drafting this page, and created a new page not knowing how to incorporate the additional information into the earlier existing article and also confident that this new page having a different approach would pass scrutiny. I have not done any original research and I have based this page on secondary/tertiary sources that have as their basis primary sources. Raj Pruthi’s Vedic civilization is not a primary source. B. Suryanarain Rao’s translation/commentary on Varahamihira’s Brihat Jataka is not a primary source. Swami Gambhirananda’s translation/commentary on the commentary of Sankaracarya on Brahma Sutra is a tertiary source. So are the works of other authors. Translations and accompanying explanations cannot be held primary sources. But, you are more experienced and better informed than I am. At the most I can re-work this page which is marked for deletion.Aditya soni (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Aditya Soni seen Deva (Hinduism) after creating this article? But he can still expand Deva (Hinduism), and give up writing this one and he should provide the basic idea on other article. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability which has been proven by Aditya soni as I assume if there was evidence he would've improved it..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and Merge appropriate content to Deva (Hinduism). Definitely a content fork, can't speak to the verifiability of any claims within. SPACKlick (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 Landing Signal Officer#Optical Landing System. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Integrated Launch And Recovery Television Surveillance System[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged for references and notability for over six years, without improvement; time for a discussion about it. Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Deletion spree. Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. Unscintillating (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- User:Unscintillating, there is no need to be like that. I've given clear reasons for my nomination. Can you please comment on the article and its notability, not the editor. Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you accusing me of commenting on other users? Please clarify. Unscintillating (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. That is, indeed, commenting on the nominator and not the nomination. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about you do the WP:BEFORE analysis, including the WP:ATD analysis, report the WP:BEFORE D1 search results, and report on any content policies that would be reasons to delete this article. Proper preparation of the community for a deletion discussion moots my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to be notable, not even mentioned at Modern United States Navy carrier air operations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:CIRCULAR. Whether this is mentioned in Modern United States Navy carrier air operations or any other Wikipedia article is irrelevant to determining its notability. James500 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is clear to me from the level of coverage in GBooks and GScholar that we should not delete this article. James500 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. No need to merge, information is already in LSO article. ~Technophant (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't delete plausible redirects (WP:R). James500 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This could be redirected to Landing Signal Officer#Optical Landing System. James500 (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Landing Signal Officer#Optical Landing System, where it is already mentioned. That this system exists and is used can be verified in reliable sources. I haven't found multiple in-depth reliable sources needed for notability, but it may just be deficient military search skills on my part. Given verifiability, it is preferable to preserve information rather than delete it, In this case, the topic and its acronym are plausible search terms, so a redirect is warranted. Landing Signal Officer#Optical Landing System already mentions the system and has a ref verifying its existence and basic use. --Mark viking (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Critical and longstanding military system. Sources appear to be available: [4], [5]. If editors think a merge is appropriate, that can be discussed separately after AfD discussion is complete.

Comment What's the harm in keeping the article? We needn't worry about some bloat, the system is well discussed and so people may come looking for information on it. I don't see the harm in having a seperate article but I'm not convinced either way. SPACKlick (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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. Will prune some of the more pointless personal info out of the article and watchlist it. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manya (actress)[edit]

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

This article is a WP:BLP nightmare. The subject is an Indian actress of marginal notability who by now lives in the US and works outside the movie industry. Sources for her post-acting career rank somewhere between "scarce" and "do not exist", with the best we have a 2011 article by the community college at which she studied at that time. Manyabjp, who says she's Manya herself, disputed several key claims in the article; see Talk:Manya (actress) for details. She also seems to be unhappy with the article mentioning a well-sourced past marriage that by now may have ended in divorce. In fact, that marriage was the occasion of virtually all media coverage currently cited in the article.

Given the extreme scarcity of reliable sources, the resultant weak claims to notability, the presumed desires of the subject herself (who once blanked all biographical content), and the BLP issues, we're better off without an article about Manya. Huon (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This artical should be deleted from WP as most of the information is unreliable and hypothetical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1481:603d:6010:7b5:aa8f:de87 (talk • contribs) 00:42, August 21, 2014‎ (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Notable enough. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: - @Preetikapoor0: - WP:Clearly notable isn't a valid reason to keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - would appear to be notable to some extent.PotassiBot (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Again WP:Clearly notable isn't a valid reason to keep. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Verifiable sources exist that establishes notability of the subject. From the sources, it is easily verifiable that she acted in leading roles in several films. Personal life details may be softened, as requested by the person. But the article should not be deleted.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Slightly problematic article, and finding sources in English may be hard, but she was a leading actress in multiple top-10 Malayalam-language films over nearly a decade, which easily establishes her notability. —innotata 00:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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. Clear consensus for the outcome. The subject has sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG and for the close to fall under Wikipedia:Speedy keep 2. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amanda Eliasch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads like a biography page in a fashion magazine, on whose context and content displays particularly weak notability. Asserts WP:BIO and fails and so fails WP:GNG. Clearly not notable. Along with the reasons mentioned this article has WP:SELFPROMOTION problems. -Aromavic (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ridiculous. Subject clearly has sufficient RS coverage to pass WP:BASIC. This looks like a vexatious nomination by a WP:SPA whose only record on the project is one of unremitting hostility to the subject of the article. As such I urge Speedy Keep per WP:SK subsection 2. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amanda Eliasch is a notable artist but because of continual vandalism, we editors who wish to support the article are unable to write it correctly. It is very factual, very accurate, but not full due to endless vandalism. There is no advertising in it, and has many editors now supporting it. There is no self promotion. The article is about a notable personality on the Art Scene in London, her work, is in collections that are not even mentioned on the biography, but mentioned in prominent press. I urge also a "Speedy Keep". Spikequeen (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeenSpikequeen (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article has been deleted by many administrators in the past who have deemed it to be both un-notable and self promoting. Nothing has changed and the same page that has been repeatedly deleted has been recreated yet again with no improvements. Administrators reviewing this deletion should note that the user Spikequeen is currently under investigation for sockpuppetry for multiple usernames some of which have already been blocked. Please see the previous deletion article for Amanda Eliasch (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch) as it highlights some of the issues that have been discussed before which still apply.Aromavic (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spikequeen is only under SPI investigation because you, Aromavic, created the investigation page. Powers ^T 19:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, the rationale for deletion in the first discussion involved only the content of the article, not the notability of the subject. Powers ^T 19:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy keep. Even a cursory glance at the references in the article demonstrates a basic level of notability. I don't see any legitimate rationale for deletion, unless there are serious flaws with the several references that appear to constitute significant coverage. Powers ^T 19:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability requirements. The article may have some tone issues, but AfD is not for clean-up and the problems are better fixed through editing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why so keen to beat a stick over this article? You may not like the article, but surely this not a question of like, it is a question of what someone has achieved, and clearly by all the people fighting over the article there are a lot of people pro it.Spikequeen (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)SpikequeenReply[reply]

Speedy Delete. Her notability is certainly questionable, the references are not directly about the subject and make minor passing references to her as they do many other individuals who do not have pages. However, this is blatant self promotion.PotassiBot (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)— PotassiBot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Note to reviewing Admin PotassiBot is a newly created account whose only contributions to the project as of this moment consist of ten AfD !votes cast over a roughly 30 minute period. Many of the !votes, including this one, are separated by only a minute or two. There is no possibility that anything remotely resembling due diligence could have been performed on this or any of the other AfDs where s/he cast !votes. The attending comments also demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of, or possibly just disregard for, our standards and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional Note to reviewing Admin - the time in which I review and edit pages is irrelevant. I make positive impartial contributions to articles and any conflict to this should be taken up on my talk page and should not be discussed here. Also I recommend investigating Ad Orientem as a sockpuppet.PotassiBot (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)— PotassiBot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

When you are attempting to manipulate an AfD discussion with at best ill-informed !votes, said discussion is absolutely the appropriate forum for addressing that. As for sockpuppetry, if you have evidence I encourage you to report me to WP:SPI. If you believe I am behaving inappropriately in some other manner you are free to take the issue up at WP:ANI. Otherwise you should be careful about casting around casual accusations in breach of WP:AGF. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Keep It seems very clear to me that a couple of people who clearly know the subject or dislike her have teamed up and are trying to delete the article. A common case of sock puppetry if you ask me. The subject and article meets all notability requirements. Links to leading newspapers and reliable sources are also included. Biboobi (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)— Biboobi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Speedy keep, strange nomination by editor who seems to have registered with the sole purpose of deleting this article. Eliasch clearly meets general notability criteria, has won awards and has been profiled in a number of major papers over a 15 year period. Sionk (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Keep Either Ms Eliasch has an enemy who is seeking some kind of revenge here and wants her removed out of spite or this is someone who is wasting time and energy creating an account just to vandalise pages and waste editors and admin's time. The article does indeed meet notability requirements. That is definitely not the issue. DinkyExpress (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)— Verydinky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

I originally closed this as Speedy Keep but as someone disagrees I've reopened it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That person was me, and in a great stroke of irony, I !vote to Strong keep. Pretty much every single sentence of this article has been sourced to WP:RS, and the editors who have greatly contributed to the article even maintained rather staunchly that they did this because they'd had problems in the past with deletion. The article easily meets the WP:GNG and should be kept as a result. The person is notable. Tutelary (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In which case there's no disagreement. So let's speedy close this farce of an AfD. Sionk (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well what the hell was the point of causing all this shit when you've just voted Speedy/Strong ?.... Wow!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It needs to go for the full 7 days and be reassessed by an administrator due to the socking/SPA issue that is occurring. I did this because I've often seen cases of non-admin closure getting contested by someone with clear motives; I just wish for this process to be clear and overt, with no clear POV. If the consensus is clear, then it will be kept easily and no more afds will be allowed within short periods. (within reason, obviously.) Tutelary (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) The likely sock puppetry in no way alters the nature of this AfD. It is an obviously vexatious nomination subject to WP:SK 2 and it should not be allowed to stand. Reopening the AfD in this manner is highly questionable and dragging this out for seven more days is silly. It undermines WP:SK, WP:SNOW and WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As has been pointed out on the Talk page, it also needs an admin to reopen a closed AfD. Maybe a non-involved admin (i.e. one that hasn't previously speedied this article) needs to make a call on whether this can be speedily closed. Sionk (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am requesting an Admin to look into this and respectfully ask that no further edits be made to the AfD until this is resolved. Any further commentary should be posted on the talk page for now. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 21:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Susie Wokoma[edit]

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

unsourced blp, no real indication of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 16:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 17:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 17:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep. Though I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC, A Google search of some major London-based newspapers brings up several reviews of two recent plays that mention her roles and comment on her performance, so she would seem to meet WP:NACTOR#1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances". A BBC press release from 2002 confirms she's from London and born in 1987/8, while RADA and National Theatre profile pages would seem to be sufficiently reliable sources to verify most of the rest of the current article. Qwfp (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 17:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - has minor notoriety but page shows promise and with edits may be acceptable. Definitely keep until further notice.PotassiBot (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes.. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toufik Mansour[edit]

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

Questionable notability, autobiography/resume. Major editor is subject of the article —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" see below.--—Gaff ^ταλκ 05:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No issue about notability. Toufik Mansour is currently one of the most active combinatorialists on the planet (see, e.g., google scholar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone Severini (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now personally modified the page. I hope that the current version solves the previous issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone Severini (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep. He's very prolific but that's less important for our purposes than being influential. He appears from the citation record to be a well-regarded expert in the theory of permutation patterns, a subarea of combinatorics that is large enough to have an annual conference in its 12th year [6]; his citation record isn't as good as Einar Steingrimsson's [7] but is on par with Sergey Kitaev's [8], to name two other leading specialists in this area. But this is a low-citation field and he's "just" a full professor at a good university without a named chair, society fellowships, or high-profile awards, so it's hard to find definitive evidence of notability. As for the autobiography issues: Tmansur11 (talk · contribs) (assuming it's the same person) should be encouraged to focus his Wikipedia contributions on the many topics where his expertise can be useful but where he has less of a conflict of interest, but Simone Severini's contributions have cleaned up the problematic aspects of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- PS I just added a source for him being the first Druze mathematician. Perhaps that's another avenue for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that David's PS is an additional excellent point. I am very much in favour of keeping the page and close the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simone Severini (talk • contribs) 10:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COMMENT: I am willing to rescind my nomination for deletion, given the above discussion. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lydia Cleaver[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:PROF or WP:GNG. I've been unable to verify that she is in a 'Who's Who' guide. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Bio of a performance artist and high-school teacher. The only source I could find was this MTV bio, but that is an acknowledged transclusion of this WP article. Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC).Reply[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 17:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Agree with Agricola44, very few reference sources and a quick google search reveals no other information for confirmation. Notoriety definitely questionable.PotassiBot (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 21:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zen (Blake's 7)[edit]

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

A minor sci fi character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources for this topic including The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, Famous Robots and Cyborgs: An Encyclopedia of Robots from TV, Film, Literature, Comics, Toys, and More 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[reply]
Keep. In and of itself, this is a somewhat marginal decision as Zen scarcely a well-known fictional character like Ebenezer Scrooge per WP:BKD. But the alternative seems to be to merge the article into Characters of Blake's 7. That article is already WP:TOOLONG and outright deletion of the content strikes me as being negative to Wikipedia rather than positive. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 17:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Left Behind characters. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irene Steele[edit]

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

A minor literary book character with little or no reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Left Behind characters. I'd support a merge with the main page, but there's no need for this (or any of the characters, really) to have an article separate from the main article. None of them have really received any coverage that would show notability outside of the series. I'll also give fair warning: since there are multiple AfDs for Left Behind characters, I'll likely be cut and pasting this into each AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 17:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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. slakr^\ talk / 22:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tony Gonzalez (wide receiver)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, he was released in July of 2008 before playing a down in even a preseason game, as well as WP:NCOLLATH because he wasn't on any all-conference, all-american teams, didn't win any awards, and barely any articles exist about his college career outside of a few local news media outlets. He is coaching, but he's a high school assistant. He's just one of dozens of rookie players that get released during training camp. Rockchalk717 16:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete appears to be some kind of promotional page, or at least could be. No reason to keep by any notability measure that I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - This could be a closer call than a first glance might indicate. The first problem is distinguishing this guy, Tony Gonzalez (American football), from this guy, Tony Gonzalez (wide receiver). I suggest that everyone conduct their key word searches based on "Tony Gonzalez" & "Boston College" in order to distinguish the subject of this AfD from the obviously notable former tight end for the Kansas City Chief and Atlanta Falcons, and played college ball for Cal Berkeley. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Delete - This was a close call, and very nearly a "weak keep" !vote. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or records), or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in and NFL regular season game). Must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. So far, I have found two relatively short feature articles about Gonzalez (MetroWest Daily News, Boston Herald), and a lot two and three-sentence post-game WP:ROUTINE coverage of his college career at Boston College. The two features are about the subject's high school and post-college coaching career, not his college playing career, which is the primary basis of his claim to notability. On the other hand, there is plenty of ROUTINE post-game coverage to build out an article about his college career. I personally prefer more significant coverage about a college athlete's college career to establish a college athlete's notability, but I do note that we have kept other CFB players with shakier claims to significant coverage than this. If other editors can find additional significant coverage about the subject's college career, I could be prevailed upon to switch my !vote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:GNG. Coverage is routine sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 Oshipumbu. Already exists - Oshipumbu - So redirecting. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oshipumbu shomugongo[edit]

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

Bobherry talk 14:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1500 Sheridan Road[edit]

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

not notable or historic in any discernible way Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Condominium of no particular note - none of the sources give any indication of any particular notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not notable. Also, reads like an advertisement. BMIComp 16:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No different from any other road/area in the world. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - There is no reason for WP to account for your average 10 story building in Chicago and this one does not seem special or WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 21:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1616 Sheridan Road[edit]

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

not notable or historic in any discernible way Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Like the other Sheridan Road article, there's nothing in reliable sources beyond the indication that this address exists - there's nothing indicating any particular notability here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - No different from any other road/area in the world. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I don't think this passes WP:N or WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 23:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diverticula (mollusc)[edit]

Note: Today I moved the title of the article to the singular form Diverticulum (mollusc). Invertzoo (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) And today I moved it to Diverticulum (gastropod) to be more precise in the titling. Invertzoo (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Term appears to be a plural form of the single "diverticulum" which already has an article. No evidence of this term being used as the singular in any nudibranch article-- all references to "diverticula" appear to be the plural form meaning "multiple side sacks". "Diverticula" would have the plural form "diverticulae", which is not a word. "Diverticula" also not in OED ("diverticulum", yes). For a reference using the correct form of "diverticula" see here. KDS4444^Talk 13:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows 4,300 GScholar hits for Diverticula mollusc and 4,240 GScholar hits for Diverticulum mollusc; it appears both forms of the word are common in mollusc study. GBooks shows 4,290 hits for Diverticula mollusc -wikipedia, including some textbooks on the first page of hits. This topic looks highly notable to me. The articles Diverticula (mollusc) and Diverticulum are about different subjects. Diverticulum is concerned with diverticula in the context of human medicine and embryology, whereas Diverticula (mollusc) is about the digestive system of molluscs. It is reasonable to keep these two articles separate. The article could definitely use some sources and further improvement, but these are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. Given that article titles should generally be in the singular, a move to [[Diverticulum (mollusc)]] would be fine. --Mark viking (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I agree with Mark viking on all of the points he made. Invertzoo (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- An equally simple (okay, please, let's stay away from the condescending terminology like "simple", "basic", "easy"-- I don't even care for "facile")... An understanding of the formation of Latin plurals and singulars means that yes, this term occurs a lot (as a plural noun) in articles related to nudibranchs, but no, it is not the singular form of the word and so it should not be the title of an article. The diverticulum article is about the exact same thing as the article on diverticula (mollusc): in both cases, what is described is a short cul-de-sac off of a tube of some kind-- neither zoologist nor medical doctor is going to argue with that. It happens that in the sea slugs, the diverticula end up serving some interesting purposes-- great, that means the article on diverticulum should cover that, since they are, in fact, the same thing. My problem is that the title is technically incorrect (in that it is in the plural form), and in its correct form (the singular), an article already exists. We should not have multiple articles with slightly different titles on the same subject ("house" and "houses", "lamina" and "laminae", "umbo" and "umbones", etc.). This should be a housekeeping deletion, nothing more. That there are objections to this leaves me somewhat floored. I would support a merge of the contents into the article on diverticulum, and may go ahead and perform the information transfer on my own. But please don't call me or my acts "simple". As I have said, it is condescending and it's rude, and it is done all too often in deletion nominations. Lastly, if you would support a merge, it would be good if you could put "Merge"in bold text somewhere in your commentary, because other wise it looks like "keep" is your only vote. Thanks. KDS4444^Talk 11:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- - It is not really appropriate to launch an AfD in a situation where a "move" or a "merge" would be a sufficient course of action. AfD is supposed to be for suggesting the deleting of articles which are on subjects that are not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia; that does not apply here. And, since this is a gastropod-related article, asking for input on the Gastropod Project's talk page would probably have been a good idea. That was not done. I personally would say, do not merge the article without a consensus from the gastropod project. Wikipedia has numerous instances of articles with the same word as the title, and which are discriminated using a subsequent word in parentheses. It is not necessary to merge all articles that have titles based on the same Latin word. You can try to argue that Diverticulum has the same meaning in human anatomy as it does in sea slug anatomy, but that is not actually the case. The two terms being based on the same Latin word does not mean that the two very different sets of information should automatically be included in the same article. Disambiguation pages or hat notes can serve to differentiate article with similar titles. Invertzoo (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- - No insult intended; I was calling my search simple, not any of your prose or actions. I just used the Find sources template above and removed unneeded parentheses to investigate notability. Regarding the article, it often happens the same term is used in different ways in different fields. If there are no RS that discuss the term in depth, its different uses in different fields, history, etc., then it would be synthesis to merge disparate meanings into a single article. In this case, I haven't seen any mollusc articles that also discuss human diverticula, and I haven't seen any medical articles on human diverticulum/diverticulitis that also discuss molluscs. The two specialties have little in common, save for a fondness of using latinate terms to describe physiological features. We must follow the sources. Moving this article to Diverticulum (mollusc) will not collide with Diverticulum because of the disambigating (mollusc). I agree with Invertzoo that adding hatnotes to the two pages would further help with disambiguation and guiding the reader to the appropriate article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- - Update: I moved the title, I added three inline citations, and somewhat re-wrote the information in the article. I also added hatnotes to both articles. Invertzoo (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Mark Viking's discussion. Despite their similar name, the two features are totally different, and are in totally different phyla. I have no problem with an article on an obscure but notable topic. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note. The 7-day period is now up. A decision needs to be made and the AfD needs to be closed. Invertzoo (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dronotics[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. 300 hits on Google, of which 2 or 3 refer to a German company and the rest seem to be whois results and the like related to a .com domain. Prod removed by article creator. Kolbasz (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Neologism where the citations in the article don't even mention Dronotics which makes it complete original research and made up - Pmedema (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per reasoning given; if it was made up it might qualify for speedy deletion per A11 (made up/invented). 331dot (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 02:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of U.S. counties bordering eight or more counties[edit]

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

The number 8 seems to be completely arbitrary - I don't understand why bordering 8 counties makes it any more special than bordering only 7. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Appears to be entirely arbitrary. The creation of this list is also original research - culling names from a list of counties. --Daniel (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Nothing pops up to show this matters in the slightest, beyond being a boring trivia fact. moluɐɯ 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or rename List of U.S. counties named after presidents bordering eight or more counties or something equally arbitrary. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources presented that show that this grouping meets Wikipedia Notability requirements for standalone lists. (WP:LISTN). --Mike Cline (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Trivia. Not encyclopedic. Pburka (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – how about another arbitrary number like 10 instead? (JK.) Actually, this is trivia without sources. Epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- While I agree that it's trivia, and no sources are given, but probably any good atlas, which marks the borders of the US counties and the similar divisions of Alaska, Canada and Mexico is a source. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amir Segal[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pas WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 05:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it weird that 10 sources of information, some are well-known newspapers and respected literary prizes, are not enough. Amir Segal is one of the most prominent voices among the up and coming Israeli poets, as evidenced by his two books, numerous poetry publications on and off-line. He also published a novel (referenced in the entry), and is considered considered one of the most important literature critics in Israel today. The entry devoted to him in Hebrew has been online for years, and the English value has at least 10 references.

It seems that nothing that the contributors add to the entry would be sufficient. Not the multiple references, not the entry in Hebrew prevents the entry from being targeted for deletion. Is this a political issue where Wikipedia contributors actively prevent another entry about an Israeli cultural figure to be posted in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenitka101 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Zenitka101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there are few claims about that entry, but it seems they all get proper responds and yet this article is not aproved.

there are 18 sources for that entry.

there is an article in hebrew on that person for a long time. yet, it seems that those facts don't play a roll with that article.

I expect it to be treated fairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenitka101 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete: most of the sources now in the article are blogs, etc. One reliable source, a book review in Haaretz, only mentions Segal in passing. The question of Segal's notability was already raised at his article's talk page on the Hebrew Wikipedia (which has lower standards of notability than ours); the arguments for his notability were having his works published in several periodicals, having been a member of the board of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, etc.—none of which confer adequate notability here. He may meet the GNG from other coverage by Israeli media, but from there absence in the article, I doubt such sources exist. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find this weird again. there are two reviews from newspapers websites - that relate exclusively to Segal. there is a source that is a notable archive of writers in Israel, and another one that is ess notable but yet has importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenitka101 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zenitka101: I see what the problem is: the links to the reviews you are referring to are not working at the English Wikipedia article due to a slight mistake in the link syntax. I found the correct links at the Hebrew Wikipedia article: http://www.maariv.co.il/news/new.aspx?pn6Vq=L&0r9VQ=FEMKI (a review in Maariv) and http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/003-D-55467-00.html (a review in News1). However, I don't think that two short reviews satisfy the English Wikipedia's notability criteria for authors. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SO, anyway, there is more than "one source" for that entry. and it is worth mentioning again the writers archive of Beit-Ariela. among others in that entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenitka101 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good afternoon (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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)} 10:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JMC Academy[edit]

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

A search fails to find any significant secondary sources, current sources are academy website and a reference regarding directorship held by founder. Fails WP:ORG Flat Out let's discuss it 11:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nomination. AlanS (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Note that the nominator removed material from this article before nominating it for deleteion. Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Tertiary schools are presumed to be wp:notable. This one checks out using Google books and Google news. Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Can you please provide links to support that presumption and those stories? Small private vocational education providers are a dime a dozen in Australia, and few are actually notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you try looking in WP:OUTCOMES? Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which sources are you referring to? I didn't have much luck with Google (lots of PR-type stuff and routine directory listings, but no in-depth coverage) Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At WP:Articles for deletion/Kippax Uniting Church, I made a comment that gave evidence that the nom and the !voters had not looked at the sources in the article. Your subsequent post nominally ignored my comment, but the nature of your reply gave support to the practice of ignoring sources in the article. You have yet to agree that nominators should mark deadlinks as a part of WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other point here is that since you ignored the question I asked, and this is common knowledge, I suggest you ask at the help desk. Unscintillating (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete One of dozens (hundreds?) of small non-notable Australian private sector institutions. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency record for this institution states that it's not self-accrediting, [9], which seems a pretty important threshold test for the significance of Australian tertiary providers in the absence of reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good afternoon (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I can understand the plan and simple "it's not notable argument. In looking around, other then it exists, there is nothing that I can find to allow for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chi Delta Rho[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a way to see any discussion from last proposed deletion (Dec 2013)? I have found some info at: http://uwwlca.com/?page_id=44 Perhaps more information is available. Has anybody checked any to see if any alumni would have access to third-party, reliable sources showing notability? *Seen a Mike * 14:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment User:Seen a Mike, there was no discussion in Dec 2013 - it was prodded and the prod was removed by another editor who believed it was probably notable. Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good afternoon (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This has been open for 4 days shy of a month, with only delete votes - time to close? Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeppe Kjær[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on a an unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep- meets WP:GNG which shouldn't be a surprise given he's been averaging a goal every 2 games for the last 7 years on teams on the cusp of entering the top Danish league. Media examples are [10], [11], [12] Nfitz (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - He passes WP:GNG due to significant media coverage as shown by Nfitz. IJA (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The three sources above in no way satisfy GNG. The first two are routine transfer talk which does not confirm GNG by long standing consensus and the third is from HB Koge's own website and is not a secondary source. Happy for recreation if he ever fulfills any notability criteria. Fenix down (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good afternoon (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The GNG says that for coverage to be significant it must 'address the topic directly and in detail'. I like to think that the reason it says this is that only with such coverage can a proper article be written. The coverage here, or at least what I can make of it running it through a machine translation, does not, in my view, rise to that level. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kuyang Iskolar[edit]

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

No indications that this subject meets the criteria for inclusion. Claims that Iskolar "influenced the emerging social media literatur and activism in the Philippines" are not and cannot be substantiated. Google searches fail to find any relevant sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. I would have speedied this if I'd got there first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable blogger with zero coverage in reliable sources. Note that he only has 210 followers on Twitter, which is far from what you'd expect from an "influential" blogger. Also COI. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and lacks WP:RS .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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've also taken into account the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grand International 2014 here. Deor (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miss Grand International 2013[edit]

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

Advertising. No independent sources that proves that this year version is notable The Banner talk 11:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. DId not meet the general notability guideline--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas The Banner talk 11:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2014‎

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimmy Huck[edit]

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

Second World War bomber gunner who fails WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - no claim of notability. James^x12345 11:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Warrant officer. No decorations. No other claim to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohd. Laraib Siddiqui[edit]

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

Possible hoax. On a quick search I can't find ANYTHING beyond the Facebook page linking anyone called Laraib Siddiqui to the Samajwadi party although I see a number of other members of the Siddiqui family who are. An earlier PROD was removed hence bringing to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 09:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Delete • Wikipedia requested do not create hoaxes. CutestPenguin^Hangout 05:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, blabant self-promotion. --Soman (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dillon Phillips[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; this fails both WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as he has not yet played in a fully-professional league.) Argument that he will become notable in the future fail WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 09:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree that Dillon is not yet an established player, however I disagree that there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources - he has been written about on multiple news sites and is featured on YouTube albeit from content created by his employer. He is not just a youth team member of his team; he is a full blown squad member. The article does not speculate about his future (therefore not failing WP:CRYSTAL), my point was that I am not sure it is worth everybody's effort in deleting it when it was very likely that he will play in the near future Adam.P.Shaw (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Can you point us to any of this significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources you refer to? Because there isn't any cited in the article as it stands......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added further references to Skysports, BBC, Youtube and various other regional news.Adam.P.Shaw (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is WP:ROUTINE transfer/contract news - it is NOT the "significant" coverage required for GNG. Giant Snowman 10:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. @Adam.P.Shaw, you can recreate the article when he becomes notable, sandbox the article's content for use at a later date therefore the time and effort you've put into creating this article won't be wasted. IJA (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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. Completely agree with the comments above that the coverage so far is no morethan WP:ROUTINE match / transfer reporting. Fenix down (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brian Tayan[edit]

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

Subject does not seem to meet notability requirements of WP:AUTHOR. He has co-authored two books. "Corporate Governance Matters" is ranked #104,424 in paperback in Amazon - not stellar, even for a business book. His co-author, Professor David F. Larcker, may well meet notability standards, but Mr. Tayan seems a stretch. Possibly a WP:TOOSOON. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understand the concern on Brian. Please do note that Corporate Governance is a niche topic so books are not major sellers in the category. His ranking on SSRN (Social Science Research Network)may give a better reading on his contributions as an author:

Social Science Research Network (www.ssrn.com) is sending you information on your papers in the eLibrary as of 25 August 2014. AGGREGATE STATISTICS ON YOUR PAPERS Your Publicly Available (Scholarly and Other Papers) and Privately Available Papers on SSRN as of 25 August 2014 have: 17,375 TOTAL DOWNLOADS 4,629 DOWNLOADS IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS 93,598 TOTAL ABSTRACT VIEWS (Note: The totals above are calculated specifically for this author letter as of 25 August 2014 for all your papers on SSRN (summing the data on both your publicly and privately available papers) and therefore may differ slightly from the numbers on the SSRN site.) Your Author Statistics as of 08/01/2014 (out of 260,893 authors in SSRN, based only on Publicly Available, Downloadable Papers) 992 is your AUTHOR RANK, based on 15,724 TOTAL DOWNLOADS. 220 is your AUTHOR RANK, based on 4,565 DOWNLOADS IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS. 25,178 is your AUTHOR RANK, based on 10 TOTAL CITATIONS. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete There is unfortunately only one 3rd party resource, and it is still a link to content by, but not about, the subject. LaMona (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Op47 (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, at least 3 books published and covered in CFO Magazine and NY Times and more. (Boss Reality (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

- Comment Struck sockpuppet edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Unless someone comes up with reliable sources discussing him. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artemis (contemporary artist)[edit]

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

User:Betacommand2 tagged this for notability over six years ago, and no one has yet established that she meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. The NYT source is very good, but I could find nothing else and there are no articles in other languages. Boleyn (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boleyn, your arguments are enough to delete this article, IMHO. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added a couple of sources (to that 2005 event). There do appear to be more in French (eg.[13],[14],[15]), Greek (eg.[16]) and some in German - Google searches (you might have to skip a page of Facebook/name results) on Artemis Martin Frommelt (her former husband, also an artist), Artemis Anne Demanet (her former name) and Artemis Museum Jean-Lurgat (site of her 2013 exhibition) suggest she's still active and exhibiting. Could a speaker of any of those languages take a look and evaluate content/source? AnonNep (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete 1) only one source seems substantial [17] 2) there is no entry in the French WP, which would be logical before reaching notability for the English one (albeit not a strict requirement). LaMona (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The second reason sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 07:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not notable Op47 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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. slakr^\ talk / 05:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Palestine Association[edit]

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

Sounds like a worthy organisation, but not with substantial coverage in reliable sources. Might be worth a redirect to Royal Geographical Society. Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Royal Geographical Society#History. While modeled on the African Association per this reference ([18]), it appears to have never really got off the ground, never meeting after April 1805. [19]. There are some decent references, such as when RGS published its collected papers in 1834 ([20]) so some mention at the RGS history section, seems appropriate, at least to me. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge. Ditto above rationale. Harrison2014 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep It predates the founding of the Royal Geographical Society - so any content related to its activities would be off-topic for the Royal Geographical Society article and so a merge would be unsuitable. Sources indicate the body existed, and a lack of content in the article is not an automatic reason to delete the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment User:Tiptoethrutheminefield, I understand (although don't agree with) your arguments against a merge, and I appreciate that a lack of sources in the article as it stands does not prove that it is not notable, but why are you voting 'keep'? How do you feel this organisation meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria? Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gut instinct told me it will be notable. And a few sources I have found since indicate I am probably right, like: "This paper relates to a unique pioneering British association established in London in 1805, for the ‘philosophical, physical and biblical’ study of Palestine/the Holy Land. The short-lived Syrian Society/Palestine Association (PA) adopted the model of the African Association, founded by Sir Joseph Banks in 1788 for the promotion of travel and discovery in Africa. The PA was a predecessor of two important British scholarly societies: the Royal Geographical Society (RGS, founded 1830) and the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF, founded 1865). We first consider the historical, religious and scientific contextual background to the period, following the Napoleonic Wars in the Ottoman Empire and the revival of Christian religious beliefs and biblical criticism in Britain and Europe. Based on primary archival sources not previously studied, we then analyse the declared objectives of the Association, its founders, membership, structure, mode of operation, interrelations with consuls, traders, bankers and organisations (such as the Levant Company, the East India Company and contemporary missionary societies), accomplishments, and possible reasons for its failure. We discuss its closure in 1834, the transfer of its funds to the newly founded RGS, and the later establishment of its ‘daughter in spirit’, the PEF in 1865." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2011.00404.x/abstract Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep for sure. It is not very well known and didn't achieve very much, but there is a enough literature on it to make a usable article. There are many brief mentions in good sources. It was not part of the Royal Geographical Society, so pointing it there would be simply incorrect. I don't agree that it was "integrated into the RGS" as the article says, either. The source says that its assets were donated to the RGS after it had ceased to function; not quite the same thing. Zero^talk 06:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 07:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 no consensus to keep. Per WP:NFF, article can be recreated if notability is subsequently established. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four Girls, Three Bars[edit]

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

No evidence shows this drama meets WP:NFF. The only source in the article is unreliable, and I can't find any more. The corredponding article on Chinese wiki has been deleted twice.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. Ansh666 17:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 05:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 07:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete not notable. Op47 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Nothing on the sites of either South China Morning Post "Four Girls, Three Bars" site:www.scmp.com or Variety "Four Girls, Three Bars" site:variety.com. I did find this story on Jayne Stars. I gather it's an upcoming drama about pretty young things in legal wigs, one of whom does kung fu on the side. It could work I suppose. Grace Chan is an up-and-comer, so I'm sure the show will be notable once the network starts broadcasting it. La crème de la crème (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chan Ka-kui[edit]

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

Just 1 source supporting article and not much notable. Fails WP:GNG. Faf Du Plessis (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Excessive in-universe description without legacy outside of movie franchise. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 02:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Very notable movie character played by Jackie Chan; I googled "警察故事督察陳家駒" (Police Story Inspector Chan Ka Kui) and got many secondary sources. STSC (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Non notable character. Howzat Utseya (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:JNN? Really? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think (actually, pretty sure) this user is a sock of TekkenJinKazama (talk · contribs). They've tried to create various character articles in the past, usually of small characters (see this AFD of one Jin created with nothing to support the notability of the character. As a result, they've filed several AFD's on other character articles, some of which are deserved. Need to get the SPI filed on this one. Ravensfire (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Notable character and covered in multiple sources, English and Chinese. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep sourcing seems quite strong and supports notability of the character. Ravensfire (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 07:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Fight Sport & Martial Arts Council[edit]

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

Hyperbole aside - non-notable martial arts organization. Notability not established. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Vastly inflated claims about an organization who supposedly sanctions many styles of fighting, but most of their championships are vacant. More importantly, the only links are to the organization's own webpage. Fails WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete as an article created solely to promote or publicize the subject. The claims made in this article are ludicrously peacocked and ludicrously puffed and ludicrously promotional. It's actually lying. That's corrupt. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, it is spam. Spumuq (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 22:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anything (Big Time Rush song)[edit]

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

Unsourced article, I couldn't find any reliable sources indicating any notability. Previous version was deleted through ProD. A song title like "anything" makes it virtaully impossible to search for it though, but no single of this title is listed at e.g. Discogs or at iTunes. Fram (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Song does exist, but it does not meet WP:NSONG - it has not appeared on any major charts, and you can barely find any mention of it at all. If there was any useful content here I'd probably vote to move it to the band's page; but there is nothing here to keep. --Gccwang (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 14:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

W. Stanley Proctor[edit]

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

Sculptor who is mentioned in passing as the creator of a number of e.g. college/university monuments to star athletes, but seems to have no significant coverage of himself. What appears at first to be independent writeup turns out to be blurbs from galleries selling his works, which doesn't count. I could be wrong about this, but I'm just not seeing the coverage. EEng (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should add that I made this nomination because, as embarrassing as a notability debate can be for a subject, it's even more embarrassing for it to happen while or after a DYK main-page appearance, and it's best this get cleared up ahead of time. (See Template:Did you know nominations/W. Stanley Proctor.) No need to get angry. EEng (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment — on the "where there's smoke there's fire" theory, I'm pretty sure that with a little digging, there are enough major mentions in reliable sources, albeit minor ones, to pass general notability. Here is one, from the article.[21] Also, isn't there a standard of notability with respect to artists, writers, academics, and so on, that if their works receive enough notice and acclaim, they themselves are deemed notable? Further, he is in a state hall of fame for artists, which may be a significant award that conveys notability. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. The Florida Artists Hall of Fame is not a blurb from a gallery. As it happens, there is a standard for artists. Per WP:ARTIST: The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Since some of his sculptures are important monuments, and some have been featured at the Smithsonian, the British Museum of Natural History and the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, and he has "installed works in locations as diverse as the National Jewish Center Hospital in Colorado and the Polk Museum of Art in Lakeland, Florida. His sculpture has been selected for the permanent collection of the Leigh Yawkey Woodson Museum in Wisconsin and has been presented to the President of the United States by the Governor of Florida. Selected as the Featured Sculptor at Charleston's Southeastern Wildlife Exposition, he also earned that honor at the Easton Waterfowl Festival in Easton, Maryland." It seems that he qualifies in all of the categories of WP:ARTIST and not just the one of them required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong and Speedy keep More than 30 40 sources. WP:GNG. Easily fulfills criteria in WP:ARTIST. Received extensive coverage. Works in many important public collections, and noted as a creator of public art works, particularly regionally. Recognized by his peer group and patrons as an exceptional realistic artist, and honored as such. Works are in the White House and all overthe country. Nationally recognized for his work involving sports figures.

This nomination was reviewed and given a tick. Two weeks ago EEng asked if any other editors thought the article should be deleted. He has had no takers and was told by the reviewer User:TheQ Editor that it was notable. There are more than 30 sources in the article WP:GNG would seeem to apply. He is recognized by the Florida Arts Council and is in the Florida Hall Artists Hall of Fame. His works are in many important collections, and he is acoording to the Florida Secretary of State, perhaps the most important public artist in Florida.
In 2004 he received the National Sculpture Society's American Artists Professional League Award for a traditional realistic depiction in sculpture. User: Hawkeye7 actually promoted the DYK, and then decided to kill the DYK. Now User: Hawkeye7summarily killed the DYK and closed the discussion without notice? This needs to be reopened until the belated delete matter is resolved.
We need the matter reopened by an administrator. I know it can't be run until this is the deletion is resolved. But this is ridiculoous. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It hasn't been killed. It has merely been withdrawn from the prep area. It is back on the nominations page. Don't reverse my edit, because that will leave it unable to be promoted again! It will be restored to the queue once this AfD is closed, which will hopefully be soon. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Received several newspaper clippings and reviews from Laura B., Reference Desk, State Library of Florida, A Division of the Florida Department of State. Of course in Google you can look up their address, email, and phone number (...-...-6600). I'm sure she will still have all these PDFs on file (especially, if you mention Doug Coldwell's Wikipedia research on Sandy Proctor.) These sources are in the article reference. One particular review (+ biography) of special note is Clifford, Dorothy (October 22, 2000). "Sculptor of the City". Tallahassee Democrat, Section: D; Page D1. The many PDF files are very large, so you will need a good internet connection to download them. The ball in now in your court, since I had to get this information in the first place from the State Library of Florida and put into the article, and apparently don't trust what I put in, THEN it is up to ya'll to go and get it directly from the horse's mouth.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep for the following reasons:

The Tallahassee Democrat, staff writer - Hinson, Mark (Sunday March 26, 2006). Sculpturing, a place in history (2613 words) - LIFE & ARTS section (complete review on W. Stanley "Sandy" Proctor, in 3 parts).

The Tallahassee Democrat / October 22, 2000 Sunday PE EDITION / SCULPTOR OF THE CITY / BYLINE: Dorothy Clifford, DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER / SECTION: D; Pg. D1 / LENGTH: 1636 words

Admin note - Removing extensive copy+paste of above article. (not allowed per WP:COPYVIO). ---MASEM (t) 17:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleted text appears here

Source - State Library of Florida --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - a recent Proctor installation with dedication = over 100 attendees. The videos give his qualifications, awards, and accolades.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional Comment - the picture in the article of him I took on this dedication. I asked if I could take a picture of him for the Wikipedia article I was writing up on him. He said, "Sure, let me get my wife as she is in all my pictures. Where is the sun? I'll read your article when I get back to Florida." Obviously I had his permission to take his picture for Wikipedia.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - On the Mason County Sculpture Trail of 13 sculptures from nationally known sculptors, Proctor has three "Hooked on Hamlin", "Follow the Leader", "Double the Fun". --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment We don't need walls of text -- we need just sources on point to the relevant guideline, which is WP:ARTIST:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Which of these applies, and which sources back that up? The most helpful thing would be if you could point out which of the many sources talk about him, instead of just mentioning him in passing. You could list the ref#s in this permalink [22] (so we don't have to worry about ref#s shifting around as the article is edited). EEng (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of them apply, and the newspaper article deleted and eradicated by User:Masem showed that. Since there is an apparent refusal to WP:AGF on the citations which are not on line there was an attempt to provide it to you in easily digestible form. In any event, you can now retrieve it from the Florida Library. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you just say which 3-5 of the zillions of sources in the article are the ones which apply to the list above? EEng (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong, Speedy Keep Although I deal primarily in dead sculptors, there really is no reason to insist on waiting for significant, active, well documented, but alive sculptors to die before starting an article about them. Particularly during wikipedia's Summer of Monuments. When I get around to doing my article on Charles Martin (sculptor) there might be a serous discussion about notability (which I will win) but Proctor is a no-brainer. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep is in order, given the pressing issue of DYK. This appears to be adequately sourced, the subject is notable per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST and the artist has been exhibited in a number of museums, including the Smithsonian. Easily notable. freshacconci talk to me 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment WP:Snow? In September? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep clearly notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep Comment - Article is well sourced beyond museum and gallery overview of works and their locations (though that is permanently documented information in the in public galleries). Induction into the Florida Artist Hall of Fame, documented by the Florida State Division of Cultural affairs at "Member 39 — W. Stanley "Sandy" Proctor". Florida Artists Hall of Fame. Florida Division of Cultural Affairs, a division of the Florida Department of State. Retrieved August 20, 2014. meets WP: GNG. Multiple articles about "The Guardians" - two Navy Seals from the American tragedy in Afghanistan in 2005 seals WP:Artst. This piece of artwork inspired the movie "Lone Survivor" as much as the tragedy itself did. (See Johnson, Emily (January 16, 2014). "The Movie, Lone Survivor, Has A Local Tie To Tallahassee" (Video). WCTV. Retrieved September 5, 2014. and "SEALs in bronze: Tallahassee artist memorializes 'Lone Survivor' warriors". Tallahassee.com. February 24, 2014. Retrieved September 5, 2014..) For the Floridian, bronzes immortalizing regional greats also adds to WP:GNG. Strong keep! Taram (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment In support of Taram's notes about Florida and Lone Survivor, you might also see Hinson, Mark (February 22, 2014). "SEALs in bronze". Tallahassee Democrat. Retrieved August 13, 2014.. I appreciated his citations, and have added them to the Wikipedia article. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because of his scrupulous devotion to realistic depictions of humans, Proctor was the personal choice of Matthew Axelson's family for the project, and they made that recommendation to the committee."Matt Axelson Family Interview". Military Movies & News. May 12, 2010. Retrieved September 6, 2014.. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional Comment -- Documentation: Here are the minutes of the Florida Arts Council (from the Secretary of State's Office) in which Stanley Proctor is discussed as a nominee to the Florida Artists Hall of Fame: "Meeting Minutes" (PDF). West Palm Beach, Florida: Florida Arts Council. November 17, 2005. Retrieved September 6, 2014. They obviously saw Proctor as notable in a way that would meet WP:GNG and WP: Artist as per their comments when they put him on the short list of nominees. Taram (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:Snow I still haven't seen any credible argument to the contrary. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per sources outlined by Doug Coldwell. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following pages link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Stanley Proctor[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to the Florida translusion • Gene93k added, I came up with these:

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts ‎ (links)

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People (transclusion) ‎ (links)

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arts (transclusion) ‎ (links)

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America (transclusion) ‎ (links)

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts (transclusion) ‎ (links)

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting (transclusion) (links)7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into System V printing system. The consensus seems to be uniform and even includes the original nominator. And the development of the article after the nomination effectively changes the nature of the article to the extent that this nomination no longer applies. And given my own knowledge of the computers, it seems everything that has happened was a good faith successful attempt that tallies common sense. (Non-admin closure ahead of time per snowball clause) Fleet Command (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lp (Unix)[edit]

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

This article does not establish its notability by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete; agree with nomination. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to ~~List of Unix utilities~~ for now, since currently the article has little concrete information further than the current entry in the list. IMO if there can be well/multiple-source cited paragraphs on, say, the history and differences with the similar commands (e.g. expanding paragraphs 2 and 3) then it would make a good case to keep. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 05:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure a merger is feasible, given the format of "List of Unix utilities". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep—Rather than list sources here, it might just be easier for me to rewrite the article. If I don't get to it in the next few days, I'll put a few cites here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Struck !vote; changed to merge+redirect below. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There are numerous books which establish the notability of the topic - see Introduction to Unix and Shell Programming, for example. A general prohibition of content about computer commands does not seem sensible; it would be like forbidding content about mathematical operations and symbols. If the current content of the page is not liked then there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with spooling and our editing policy is to prefer these. Andrew (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability is different from bombardment. The subject of the computer books that cover Lp is Linux and Unix, not Lp because their coverage is both circumstantial (as opposed to direct) and passing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Calendar for a similar case. A good way of distinguishing true notability is looking at its impact. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lisa. lp was the name of the UNIX System V printing system as well as the name of one of its commands (contrast with lpr and LPRng on BSD systems, and CUPS on Linux systems). As such, several books on System V administration devote a chapter to lp, the associated commands, and the configuration of the system. On the article talk page I've added a list of quotations culled from 13 books in the UMinn library; the selection here is good but not great, and I may be able to find several more in my campus library or UC Berkeley (but I won't be back there for a month). I know you work in this area a lot. Do you have any old UNIX manuals that you could dust off? What I've found so far is good for factual background, but I'm lacking the context of why lpr differed so much from lp, and why lpr lasted so much longer. Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, LC. I am afraid I don't have any manuals left. And I doubt if they ever count as evidence of notability. But the best way to keep this article is to merge it to a Unix printing topic. Actually, you've linked to a couple of the articles that might just do. You see, we might save more than one article from deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update—I've rewritten the article, and in the process of doing so noticed that someone smarter than I am had linked to System V printing system, which is what Lp (Unix) actually is (well, in my opinion, anyway). Could interested parties take a look and see if they think lp still needs its own article, and if it doesn't, should we be thinking about a merge+redirect? (As an aside, there was some good-but-unsourced stuff in the previous version that didn't carry over to the new version. Please feel unusually free to revert if you'd like the article to retain its previous focus.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lesser Cartographies: You mean saving two articles instead of just one? Definitely. While a command does not have impact, a printing system definitely does. I support the merger 100%. Too bad I can't close this nomination myself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge+Redirect—Merge the content of Lp (Unix) into System V printing system, then redirect Lp (Unix) there. Codename Lisa mentioned they were willing to withdraw the nom given the rewrite, in which case we can do a Speedy Keep here followed by a WP:BOLD merge+redirect. Titanium Dragon, Hisashiyarouin, Andrew Davidson: if you have time and inclination, take a look at rewrite and let me know if you'd prefer another path. Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or Merge with System V printing system. Given Lesser Cartographies' major rewrite, this is now a well referenced start-class article--nice work, LC! Just on that basis, I would recommend keep. But as LC notes, there is a large overlap with System V printing system, so it would be reasonable to merge these two articles. In any case, there is no longer a compelling case for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep or Merge with System V printing system after great rewrite by LC (). List of Unix utilities seems a much less appropriate target per Lisa. Striking target above. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 01:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

InfoQuest[edit]

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

This seems to be a pretty standard university career festival, sourced to a couple blogs and copies of press releases. I can't find a single independent source discussing it. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, agree with nomination. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above - Fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete • The article does not meets general notable guidelines and need significant coverage in reliable sources in current state the article is relying on self published sources. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 21:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oggy (Oggy and the Cockroaches)[edit]

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

There's simply not enough information here to warrant a unique article. My preference would have been to merge, but the entirety of the content here is original research consisting of personal observations like coloration inconsistencies, and changes to character design. Whatever we wish to say about Oggy is, at present, best suited for a short paragraph in the main article. In this edit at the main article, UltraMario64, stated that he had an intention to flesh out this article, but this article hasn't been touched in almost 2 weeks, is unsourced, and I think userfication will give Ultra the time he needs to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, if he is able to do so. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, I userfied this article over a year ago at the article creator's request. This article is better written than the version from last year, but it still lacks any cited information that would justify it standing alone as an article. I am almost to the point of saying, delete, redirect and salt. EricSerge (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I can't find a list of characters, so deletion seems like the best choice. I would not be opposed to draftifying the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incubate Eric, I told you to INCUBATE the page, not userfy it. You userfied the page instead, which led to a minor edit war. So. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraMario64 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UltraMario64 - Incubation is no longer an option. See WP:INCUBATOR. This means either: improve now, move to draft/or userfy and improve, or delete. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eric, I added reliable sources and a construction template... — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraMario64 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Unsourced original research with no indication of notability. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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. Safiel (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kidnapping in Islamism[edit]

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

Before this page gets added to any further, do we need it at all? Should we leave it as is, move it to Kidnapping in terrorism which is currently a redirect, merge to Kidnapping or delete. Right now, I am leaning to delete. I think the subject can be fully covered in Kidnapping. Since there is really nothing to merge yet, just a straight deletion would work. Safiel (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Poorly sourced and seems like slapped together POV effort that's better covered in articles like those mentioned above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural keep The user has not yet finished the page and the article creator has put the process of an expansion or major restructuring tag and feel it is wrong to nominate it for deletion at this point.You can ask him to usefy personally only after one has finished a page should one nominate it for deletion.Here it was nominated within 7 minutes of creation .Please note it purely procedural.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural keep - The article's subject is certainly notable, and per Pharaoh, give it a little time to see whether or not it shapes up as something worthy of an independent article or if it would be better covered elsewhere. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snow Keep and Improve the noteworthiness of this start of an article (I started it) is revealed in the sources (Al Qaeda says it is significant. So do Foreign Policy and the New York Times). It needs A Lot of work. Tragically, there is a great deal of material in the many articles about kidnap victims that can be added to improve this too-brief article on kidnapping as an Islamist strategy for fundraising, diplomatic bargaining chips, and intimidation of civilian populations. Editor who posted delete saw the article a few minutes after I started it. I have requested him to withdraw his request for deletion out of courtesy.ShulMaven (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Nominating an article 8 minutes after creation is pretty much bad-faith, I'll Assume good faith and not close this discussion which actually was my plan anyway!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consumer Priority Service[edit]

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

Created by SPA. No evidence of notability. I could find only one WP:RS. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. It is written in a style that sounds like a promotion for the company. Also, the main editor on the article has only edited this article and a couple of others relating to it, a possible COI. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article; the firm's bronze Stevie award with 2 others in a narrowly-drawn Stevie award category and a Silver Award Winner on the TopTenREVIEWS website are insufficient for encyclopaedic notability, nor am I seeing anything better in that respect. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet general notability requirements per AllyD. Yworo (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per everyone above me - Clearly promotional crap. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Estadio Osvaldo Casanova[edit]

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

No sources since oct 2006, and I was unable to find RS through Google. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I also couldn't find any notable coverage in paid databases, either in English or Spanish. Andrew³²⁷ 10:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above - I can't find nothing in English nor Spanish, Fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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. Nom withdrawn so despite voting the outcomes gonna be the same obviously. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dalia (Egyptian singer)[edit]

Withdrawing nomination because reliable sources and adequate coverage was found. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Failed to find good RS. Search results were pages citing WP, online radios, unrelated people, passing mentions, etc. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC) *Delete-this was a article I was considering putting a AFD on a few days ago. Wgolf (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - User:Wgolf should we not check in the Arabic language for sources? okay perhaps not everyone can read Arabic but anyone see here in image search two CD albums on the major Arabic music label. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I've found nothing but images and facebook accounts, Even tried the Arabic Wikipedia and Google Arabic but obviously found nothing, Other than album covers there's not 1 ounce of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For me Google immediately picked up the artist bio on the world's major Arabic record label Rotana Records : Rotana - Dalia bio confirming the collaborations with major artists in the article as follows: In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"داليا" فنانة مصرية، اكتشفها الموسيقار "جمال سلامة"، وقدم الفنان "حميد الشاعري" عدة أغاني منفردة معها، كما شاركها الغناء في ألبوم "هدوء مؤقت". كما أنها قدمت أغنيات منفردة ضمن ألبومات منوعة مع "إيهاب توفيق"، و"حميد الشاعري"، و"أحمد جوهر". ثم أطلقت ألبوم "بحبك أنت" الذي حقق نجاحاً كبيراً، وأصدرت ألبوماً آخراً بعنوان "مغرمة"، كما شاركت في أوبريت وطني "القدس هترجع لنا" مع عدد من الفنانين."

Keep - I won't lie - The sources are somewhat hard to find but after some digging Me & In ictu oculi have both found quite a few sources so now meets WP:GNG, –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep-I think I might of found something for her earlier which is why I didn't put one up or something, don't remember. Of course since I can't say I'm a expert at Arabic....But yes changing it to keep! Now we just need to creator of this topic's input! Wgolf (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 07:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steve Acquah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Several references are listed, though many are just links to papers he has co-authored. Other references don't even mention him. Only one reference is an interview with him in a non-notable publication. Awards are not notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. From what the article says, he appears to be a soft-money researcher working for someone else rather than the head of his own research group, and the publication record bears that out — his citation counts are too low to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and his top-cited papers all list him in a middle position among many other co-authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete—Nothing showing up in google books either. The awards don't appear to have generated independent coverage. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, reads like an expanded CV. Kierzek (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above - CV-type article that serves no purpose here other than to promote. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Snow delete. Most sources are self-pub. Man, this article ain't got a snowball's chance in Hell! --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Delete - totally insignificant for any wikipedia criteria.PotassiBot (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KeepThank you for your input on this article.

Here is how I reached my assessment when putting together this article At first glance I would also agree with some of the comments when editing this topic, but as the person in question is not just known for academic work, I’m not so confident that an assessment can be solely based on this criteria. I based my decision on this: “However, academics, in the sense of the above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g., in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc.) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.” WP:ACADEMIC It does seem that Steve works in more than one capacity as there are sources listing him as director of the GEOSET facility. http://www.thomasu.edu/Content/Default/101/4464/0/university-news/acquah-to-bring-geoset-to-next-tu-science-caf%E9.html

Are there any sources for ‘soft money researcher’ or hard money? I couldn’t find any. I’m not sure I’m qualified to decide on this in reference to a decision on this article, but a Director is not likely to be on soft money. Also from looking at other academic profiles as templates, I don’t see much of a difference. You have to talk about their work. This is part of every article. This is why they are academic. Once the requirements for notability have been established all you have left is their work. If there are any articles contrary to this assertion, it would be helpful to see. Also one of the articles news articles talked about interdisciplinary collaboration. This means that not everyone is likely to take the top spot on research papers. You need only look at the controversy about credit for the Higgs Boson. As for awards, I just listed what I found from a google search. They were not intended to infer notability about the awards, just to complete information about the person. Apologies if this was incorrect. I have deleted the awards section anyway.

I based ‘notability for academic’ on his chartered chemist status. “Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. “ “3.The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE).” Maybe in writing more about the subject it would read like a CV but I see how that can be subjective as both a CV and Wiki article must retain a degree of neutrality. I was trying to avoid the content reading like a resume based on the material I found and the guidelines http://chr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.Maybe the subject matter is broader than just an academic profile. There are some experienced editors in this list that I’m sure can easily correct any deficiencies here to at least leave the article as stub for further improvement. Although in attempting to write this article this is what I was attempting to avoid. Any suggestions for further improvement? I’ve made some corrections. Looking forward to further constructive discussion. Groinstrad (talk) 5 September 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Groinstrad. I appreciate the work you did on the article. I see this is your first article; for what it's worth, the writing and formatting was fine, you just ran into a problem with the notability of your subject. I'll respond at greater length on your talk page. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James G. Henderson[edit]

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

Nothing to establish him meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Eeekster (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Meets the requirements as a specialist in his field , on the basis of seven published books by major publishers, some of the quite widely held, and three of them translated into Chinese (which shows international recognition). I wonder whether the nom e thought about WP:BEFORE; the article as submitted was hopelessly inadequate. nut I filled it in, and they could have also. The additional judgements, added before I did that, seem to be based on the absence of data, saying essentially that if the article is inadequate, the person must not be notable. We have never in the last 4 or 5 years deleted an article for a full professor at a major university, except for those fields, such as education, where apparently there is a feeling that they are not worth serious consideration (and also excepting a few individuals with unpopular views whether in their own or on unrelated subjects). Both represent prejudice. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DGG What you are saying here seems to be different from the statement on the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page. There it states: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, once notability has been established through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details." (My emphasis) Are you saying that evidence that the professor did indeed publish meets this criterion, and that third-party information about the person and his/her research is not needed? (I'm not questioning that reasoning, I'm trying to square your criteria with what I understand as WP:V.) LaMona (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources are good enough. The holdings data from Worldcat is a reliable independent source, that establishes notability because of its proof of the number of books and their widespread presence. If you want to be technical, they show the widespread holdings for each of the seven books separately & are thus multiple sources, each of them totally independent from him or his university. It would, of course, be preferable to have reviews in addition, in which case it would furthermore meet WAUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the sources are good enough." There really are no sources here, just his writings. That's why I was asking your interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). As for the Worldcat numbers, in fact, they aren't meaningful, and I was going to anyway suggest that they be dropped from the article. #1) there are about 70K libraries represented in WorldCat, so a number like "353" is much less than a drop in the bucket. (I myself have a publication that has over 1100 holdings as listed in WorldCat. I am not wp:notable.) #2) those numbers are far from stable. I was trying to do some research based on them and noticed that they changed every time I searched. I contacted folks at OCLC and they admitted that the numbers appear to change depending on the state of the database over time in terms of record merging and other database maintenance. #3) If you wish to cite numbers, they have to be meaningful, which would be how does this book rank in relation to others in the same field? By searching on subject headings from the book I found some in the 800's and 900's. I found others in the 300's and 200's. What does this mean for this book? At best, you can show that, ballpark, it's fair to middling. But you can't say that a particular number, like '353' proves anything. LaMona (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete An average academic; no awards, no breakthroughs found. LaMona (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Has advanced an educational concept known as 3S Understanding. I've added a few sources. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per DGG and the addition of independent sources by EricEnfermero. Royal broil 21:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G11) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CPU Speed Pro[edit]

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

Article was created by an SPA, who presumably working for the company who makes this software. This does not seem to be notable. Almost the entire thing is a promotional piece. - The ChampionMan 1234 00:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - The ChampionMan 1234 00:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Agreed. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 07:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PC Optimizer Pro[edit]

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

Article was created by an SPA, who presumably working for the company who makes this software. Not notable, many of the Google search results indicate it as malware. - The ChampionMan 1234 00:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - The ChampionMan 1234 00:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Bad faith advertising. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Despite this being reviewed on CNET [23] - It actually seems to be malware-related ... Perhaps it was reviewed when It ACTUALLY was legit, Anyway no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Agree with the above. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Promotional with no notability established. Very close to WP:G11. I think this can be snowballed - Pmedema (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete - It's a scam, we shouldn't have an article that treats it as anything other than that. We certainly shouldn't have any download links on it either. moluɐɯ 21:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, it is malware and the article is an advert. Spumuq (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[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. Michig (talk) 06:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laci Green[edit]

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

Article does not establish WP:NOTABILITY of subject, and primarily relies on blog posts, much of which is attributed to the subject herself. Coverage in RSs appears to be cursory. - Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. It has more primary sources than I'd like, but it's fine; WP:BLPSELFPUB allows their use. Green has more than enough coverage to satisfy the GNG: [24], [25], [26], [27]. I would think that most articles that I've edited would be fairly safe from deletion, as I'm hardly an inclusionist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @NinjaRobotPirate:, I don't know that that really establishes her notability. The article is more than half stuff which is sourced to her - the only things which aren't are that she is a sex educator who has given lectures at several universities (which is sourced to kind of meh sources), that she is a host of DNews, that she was the target of harassment, that her videos have been watched a bunch on YouTube, and that she was on Dr Phil. That's... it, really. I'm not sold on her being notable - I have no doubt that she is mentioned in RSs, but the coverage doesn't seem to really establish notability and the article doesn't really seem to do so either, as it is half background biographical information, and very light on why she is actually a notable person - nothing really mentioned on the article says to me "this person is notable" or "this person is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia." The non-biographical information is just a listing of random stuff about her which was mentioned somewhere on the internet, rather than a coherent article about an important person. Merely being mentioned by the press or showing up on TV is insufficient for notability. I'm not seeing what about this person presented in the article is notable, and this article has been around for months. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Most articles on YouTube celebrities are horrible, and I've been working on several lately. This one was even worse before I started; I admit that I haven't done a very good or thorough job (yet), but current article status isn't a reason to delete. The important thing is that reliable sources have taken note of her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per NinjaRobotPirate, Passes GNG, The article does need improvements but that's never a reason to delete .–Davey2010 • (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. Not the greatest nomination - David Gerard (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG. [28], [29] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. Needs improvement. (She spoke at the University of Sydney this week; maybe that could be added.) Catobonus (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep See also this Huffington Post-article. Achievements in media can be problematic to pass notability. To draw the line to the absurd: with the same reasoning, we should delete the Walter Cronkite-article, since just reading the news is not news-worthy itself. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Laci Green!!!

Laci Green produces some of the best videos for young women and men on YouTube. The persons who are recommending deletion of her blogs on Wiki are doing so because they don't like what Laci Green is doing to inform young people about human sexuality. If anyone finds her YouTube videos offensive, it's because they probably don't like the messages she is communicating in her videos. They probably have differences of opinion as to what should or should not be included in sex education for young people. She does her messages in a very decent and creative way that gets the point across. Under no circumstances whatsoever can her videos and her messages be considered as being "pornographic". They definitely aren't. As a parent with grown children, I wish that Laci Green had been around when my children were younger. She does a superb job!! Keep up the good work, Laci Green.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Railwaybob (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 September 2014‎ (UTC)Reply[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.