The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Someus[edit]

Edward Someus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable engineer. Not notable under WP:PROF, no publications with more than 7 citations in Google Scholar. No awards. No senior management positions. No evidence of meeting GNG. (Lack of citations does not necessarily indicate non-notability in Engineering, but there has to be some other indication of notability. ) DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no explanation why this person is particularly distinguished from other enginneers, and the article has a promotional tone. --Biblioworm 00:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  04:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Government House, Wellington[edit]

Government House, Wellington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Too much of it is copyvio from [1] [2] and other sources. Gutting it didn't really help - it removed most of the content and the rest of it is also suspected copyvio. Time to WP:BLOWITUP and start over. Article itself doesn't even indicate why it is notable after being gutted (though probably notable in itself - but this is pretty unsalvageable). — kikichugirl ^speak up! 23:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Snow keep Seeing as there's an evident possibility of snow keep here, I withdraw my nomination. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 03:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The building is indisputably notable, and I oppose having no article about the building, even briefly. The current poor state of the article is due to removing large chunks of text without substituting brief cited paraphrases. The copyvio detector is unconvincing. Of course, there are repetitions of government titles and designations. That does not violate copyright. WP:BLOWITUP is an essay which I find unpersuasive in this case. We are not talking about a promotional article about a new pop "star" or a YouTuber. This is a highly notable topic, and the article should be improved through normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the nominator wishes to start over then she may do so by means of ordinary editing; deletion is neither necessary nor helpful in this. Helpful sources for the topic include: The Governors: New Zealand's Governors and Governors-General; Conservation of Government House, Wellington; The Making of Wellington, 1800-1914. Andrew D. (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per User:Cullen328. This is clearly a historical building that played a part in history. There seem to be minor swaths of text that are copyvios, but those can be excised. A rewrite may be in order, but not a delete. DiscantX (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Personally, I'd like to WP:TNT WP:TNT. Especially when it is applied like this. The copyvio detector is not convincing, titles, location names and simple wording are always going to be repeated like this and aren't copyrighted material anyway. The only section I can see clearly copypasted was about Lord Plunkett. Removing the leading paragraph was ridiculous . . . seriously, there are only so many ways to say that in the first place that its bordering on uncopyrightable, and it would've taken the remover two seconds to paraphrase anyway. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, and the large number of substancial references identified as part of this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lizard squad[edit]

Lizard squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject's notability is not well established. There is some coverage of them, but the biggest aspects are cited through their own accounts rather than news coverage. The organization "claims" these attacks as theirs but these claims are not being supported through secondary outlets, particularly their claims of taking down North Korea's internet and XBox/Playstation systems on Christmas Eve. only (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I count at least 4-5 independent, reliable sources already in the article that cover the subject matter. They also cover the group across more than one event. Ex: this Forbe's article talking about a bomb threat that grounded a plane the Sony president was on. Artichoker^[talk] 21:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and move to Lizard Squad They've earned a hated reputation for a reason, and reliable sources already in the article back up those reasons. Essentially, per Artichoker. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 21:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No proof of their claims. For all we no they could monitor the statud pages and claim they DDOS them when they go down under regular stress (like Christmas). Also, the only reason the hackers continue this is for recognition and fame and similar to WP:DENY we shouldn't really give that to them. EoRdE6 (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is some fairly shoddy reasoning. Not having proof of their claims is irrelevant. There are multiple, third-party, reliable sources that provide discriminate coverage to this group. It's not up to you to decide whether there is proof or not; we leave that to the sources. In addition, your last sentence comparing the situation to WP:DENY is silly. Does this mean that we should also not have an article for person X because they did something for fame/recognition, and we shouldn't give that attention to them? Who will decide which subjects Wikipedia will deny coverage to because we don't like what they're doing? You? Artichoker^[talk] 04:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if it does turn our to be a hoax that would not mean that the group suddenly stops being notable. Hoaxes can be notable. For example we did not delete Lonelygirl15 when it was discovered to be a hoax and I am sure any attempt to try to delete it now under that rational would fail spectacularly. Also, WP:DENY is about vandals on Wikipedia not outside people or gropus that meet the notability guidelines. I don't see it applying here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.253.160 (talk) 07:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's not about whether or not their claims are true, its about the coverage they get. It could all be an elaborate hoax and it still would be notable if that hoax is reported on. JT_dale^Talk~ 03:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There has been a wave of coverage in general interest newspapers in recent days. This profile of the group in the Christian Science Monitor is just one example. This is big, enduring news. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see no reason to remove this article, it's become apparent that the group has become very notable recently and thus warrants it's own article. Even BBC news has covered stuff on them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30602609 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30306319Faissaloo (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Denial-of-service attack, the page is nothing more than a timeline of 'claimed' DDoS attacks, none of which can be substantiated. "Service X went down and Twitter account Y claimed to have done it" 5 times isn't an article. WP is WP:NOTNEWS.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more stuff than just DDoS attacks though, such as the Bomb threats, FBI, Kim Dotcom's negotiations with them etc. It makes no sense to merge it with an article about the nature of DDoS attacks Faissaloo (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The FBI haven't said anything about investigating them, bomb threat just another 'claim', Kim has 10k tweets, this isn't special. It's all based on hearsay. This isn't another Syrian Electronic Army.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes they have: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/08/27/fbi-hunted-hacking-group-continues-attacks-targets-twitch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faissaloo (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my comments about the FBI related sources at Talk:Lizard_squad#FBI_claims. The articles you are providing have not shown proof that the FBI is investigating. only (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move from "Lizard squad" to properly-capitalized "Lizard Squad". Notability clearly established by international coverage in news media. —Lowellian (reply) 15:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and withdrawal recommended. Not sure what it was like yesterday, but the amount of coverage now is undeniable. Even before that, look at this dedicated coverage:

Unless there is an argument that this is something "Wikipedia is not", this topic is very clearly the dedicated subject of multiple in-depth pieces from reliable sources. czar ⨹ 16:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, named on BBC television news, so very notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, No reason to remove article. Corn cheese (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:Notability has been satisifed as per comments and links above Mikesc86 (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SNOW keep. The notability of this organization should not be in question, given the abundance of extensive third party coverage. RFerreira (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, No reason to remove article, for the information is valid, and the group is important enough, due to all of their cyber attacks, in Which there is proof of which they have done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILUVLIZARDSQUAD (talk • contribs) 21:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— ILUVLIZARDSQUAD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This article has previously been deleted 3 times under the name Lizard Squad

• Rename: Should at least be correctly named to Lizard Squad. EoRdE6 (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW keep, early closure was reverted. Not sure why, as consensus is clearly in favor of keeping the article. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First WP:SNOW is an essay. Second the discussion hasn't even been going for 24 hours. Is kept, article at least needs an admin move. EoRdE6 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Noted, that "article has previously been deleted 3 times under the name Lizard Squad". Still say keep now. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no question about this subjects notability. wp:gng.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is that the subject does not meet any of the various notability guidelines at this time to qualify for an article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burnett (producer)[edit]

Mark Burnett (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Subject's participation in Dr. Who was uncredited and he has only one movie to his credit, which does not satisfy the notability guidelines. Article previously deleted at AfD for notability reasons and absolutely no indication the subject has achieved notability since the last AfD. Safiel (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. In hope of avoiding confusion noted in the previous AfD, please note that this Mark Burnett is not the same person as Mark Burnett, the prominent American producer of Survivor who is CEO of United Artists and the husband and business partner of Roma Downey . --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can list dozens of people who have articles that contain only a few sentences and no other references than IMDB that have been kept on Wikipedia. I added the page for others to contribute their knowledge to the article as Wikipedia is meant to be. Others may know more about this person and be able to contribute more.Makro (talk) 23:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person's only claim to notability is producing a film called "Sleeper", which if IMDb is to be believed, was made on a budget of just £10,000, and received no critical attention whatsoever. The film isn't notable, and therefore, its producer can't possibly be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because a film has a low budget doesn't make it less notable. Paranormal Activity had a budget of $15,000. I am aware that this film was heavily promoted, I just thought id point that out.Makro (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale and we don't keep articles only so they can serve to collect other tidbits. I'd recommend keeping entries in sandboxes and soliciting help with them. Wikipedia has to have quality control. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have heard of him and have been trying to find sources of info online. Just because a few people like User:Safiel dont know of him doesnt mean there isnt someone on here who does. The page shoukd stay so thry have to opportunity to improve it. 193.111.141.66 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC) — 193.111.141.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment I smell the distinct odor of dirty socks in the air. Safiel (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment to the comment - I notice that there was significant sock puppetry during the last AfD, so let us hope that this will not happen this time around. Tomas e (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't appear to meet GNG and CREATIVE, and I have the strong suspicion that the article creator's spree of nominating articles for deletion under the same grounds may well be rather WP:POINTy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and subject fails WP:CREATIVE. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cullen 328 and Kudpung. Tomas e (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Subject fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and each and every other notability guideline. I also noticed that the creator of the page is making multiple bad-faith nominations as such this one, should they not take this personally and familiarize themselves with relevant Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wish him luck in his future, but way WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:CREATIVE--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny Barby[edit]

Lanny Barby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete A non-notable pornstar with just 136 movies (per iafd). With no major award wins, no mainstream popularity, no revolutionary contributions to the porn industry, this page fails WP:PORNBIO. Her one possibly unique contribution to porn was having sex with her half-sister Kimberly Franklin on-camera, but Lanny's page doesn't even acknowledge this relationship. Redban (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's generally accurate analysis. That supposedly "unique contribution" lacks genuinely reliable sourcing and is likely a bit of creepier-than-usual kayfabe. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Relevancy is reduced by now, but note that a 2007 AfD (keep result) occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lanny Barbie.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does she pass PORNBIO, since she has no awards, only nominations, and other significant claims? Which of the article sources do you believe meet GBG requirements? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - encyclopedic. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 21:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained vote that must carry minimal worth in this Afd. Redban (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - win, so passes WP:PORNBIO + WP:GNG. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"win"? what win? She hasn't won any awards. Redban (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Based on sum total of coverage, nominations, Penthouse pet appearance, none of which may be sufficient in a vacuum by themselves. I am also troubled by Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_tagging_by_Redban in terms of evaluating the nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the keep votes has adduced any substantive coverage and are pretty much unevidenced assertion. This is a BLP that is inadequat5ely sourced. Needs deleting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - winning an industry award does not negate PORNBIO's mainstream notability requirement.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Раціональне анархіст, most category-specific guidelines (including this one) are assumed to confer notability if the subject meets any of the criteria. That is, if she does meet PORNBIO (1), then she wouldn't need to meet (2) or (3) for notability to be assumed. The question is if she meets any of PORNBIO and/or meets all of WP:GNG. Consider a closely related category-specific guideline, WP:AUTHOR. If a person meets AUTHOR (1) in that the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, then would it make sense to deny them notability simply because they didn't meet (2), The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? The criteria in category-specific notability guidelines are generally check-pass, unless noted otherwise. Deadbeef 09:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the smut industry has learned to game Wikipedia for endless free advertizing. <Gandolf pose> This, I submit, should not pass.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's what's happening here. Regardless, if you think PORNBIO is too lenient, you can open a discussion on the talk page or add to the similar discussion already in progress. I think it's fine as is but you're more than welcome to raise an issue if you disgree. Deadbeef 22:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, most of the Keep votes above overlook the fact that this person doesn't have much in the way of independent secondary coverage, and doesn't even meet the absurdly permissive WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment Based on the PORNBIO criteria, yes, it's a delete. But "absurdly permissive"? If anything, the notability restrictions for adult performers are absurdly RESTRICTIVE. You have to win an award, but it can't be just any award -- no body or scene awards (never mind the fact that most porn stars are famous because of their bodies or how well they perform certain acts) -- and it has to be the right organization that presents the award. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of "mainstream" actors have no awards whatsoever, but porn performers are being held to a higher standard simply because they are porn performers. Anyway, yes, based on the exclusive standards, delete. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have already voted to delete but I want to nail down this argument that the subject meets PORNBIO. There is no indication whatsoever that she does. The two keep votes that assert she does are founded on fantasy. PORNBIO requires:

Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.

Not met - nominations only

Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.

Not met - no evidence in article or afd that this is case

Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

Not met -= no evidence in article or afd that this is the case.

Please can we close down this discussion now and just delete this article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails on all three criteria of PORNBIO. No notable individual awards nor any other notable presence. -- fdewaele, 29 December 2014, 17:04 CET.
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article obviously fails WP:PORNBIO. I have no idea of how the subject meet WP:PORNBIO. The basic criteria required to merit a page had been clearly stated here. However, the fact that the nominator of the page had an issue at WP:ANI is not a concern but the failure of the article to meet WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Laboratories[edit]

Zee Laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability requirements of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:NCORP. Vrac (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Vrac (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't really find any true coverage for this company to show that it meets notability guidelines. There were a handful of news sources talking about how they got a notable actress to hawk their products and some negative coverage over their products ([3]), but most of the coverage was brief trivial mentions about how the India government was ordering from "dubious" (their description, not mine) companies like Zee Laboratories. ([4], [5]) Sometimes these things can make a company notable, but in this case none of it was particularly heavy enough to really show notability. This could probably be speedied as sheer promotion, given how the page was written, but I think that this would benefit from a full AfD just in case some sources do exist (ie, not in English). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -There are few passing mentions of the subject in some reliable sources ([6]). They however have received full-page negative coverage for Income tax-raid on their premises ([7]). To put it all, they don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH standard and qualify for deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the others. The coverage is not significant enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per User:Tokyogirl79's argument. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kunjaan[edit]

Kunjaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are no reliable sources for the movie, none that I can find, and the article is a prime example of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: This article has already been through an RfA AfD in 2006, which was closed as delete. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps you mean AfD, rather than RfA. :) Safiel (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Utterly non notable and epically violates WP:CRYSTAL. Unfortunately CSD A7 does not apply to films, certainly deserves speedy deletion, but no criteria apply. Safiel (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm sorry but creating this was utterly moronic - It honestly couldn't fail WP:CRYSTAL any better than this!, I sure as hell would love to A7 it but as Safiel notes we unfortunately can't. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also the closing admin may want to SALT this seeing as it was created back in 2006, I can't find nothing on Google to suggest this film even exists, I'd say this was a Hoax in '06 and is a Hoax now. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax, vanity page or whatever. It claims that it will be "started" in 2018. WP:CRYSTAL certainly applies to that. MarnetteD|Talk 20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per failing WP:NF. If sources come forward showing this as filming, a recreation of a properly sourced article might be considered. For now, WP:NFF is failed and this is (at most polite) waaaaaay TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -per all above. We should speedy these kind of articles invoking IAR. There is nothing to discuss about. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, crearly fails WP:CRYSTAL. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giannis Vardinogiannis[edit]

Giannis Vardinogiannis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sure if this person is notable. His father is notable for being the president of a large oil company, but I don't know if this person is notable on his own. (WP:NOTINHERIT) The article says that he was the President of football club Panathinaikos FC, but I'm not sure if that qualifies as making him notable. Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because he is a relative of Vardinogiannis who does not seem notable either:

Yiorgos Vardinogiannis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we are not Onepercentpedia. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Giannis - A rally driver who scored points in the top-tier series, the World Rally Championship, on multiple occasions, meets notability requirements. He competed under the pseudonym of "Jigger", and took sixth in the 1988 Acropolis, ninth in 1989, seventh in 1990, tenth in 1991, and eighth in 1992. This is verifiable in [8] He was also a multiple Greek Rally champion, but that is a relatively minor series and may not contribute to notability. Although eWRC Results is a regularly used source and is reliable, just in case you don't trust it, the official Acropolis Rally page verifies his sixth placed finish, whilst [9] is an example of a source that backs his WRC championship finish. There are also a few sources out there covering him as a chairman of Panathinaikos, such as [10] and [11]. No opinion on Yiorgos at the moment; will look him up shortly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on Yiorgos - In terms of English-language sources, well, there aren't many. However, I am pretty sure that there will be rather more sources in Greek; however, I don't speak Greek, and given that they use a different character set, I'm not really able to check such sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As written both of these articles could be deleted, but I'd be surprised if there weren't enough sources in Greek to show they both meet GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Not to be rude but not sure is really not enough to AfD. Stick some maintenance tags on the article if that is your worry. Now, I lean to keep due to his wealth and the arguments presented by Lukeno. Also his former ownership can be verified via this coverage I found in this book. JT_dale^Talk~ 03:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With a majority believing that this is a notable enough even to warrant an article.  Sandstein  10:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Akai Gurley[edit]

Shooting of Akai Gurley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:notability, just like Netanel Aremi. Keiiri (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well sourced article regarding an event covered by international media. Artw (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any media covering it right now at all, and in any case, WP:NOTNEWS. A non-notable event that's unlikely to have any lasting significant impact. Keiiri (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a quick pass through, tidied some things up, expanded a little, added some sources and put the existing sources into a more useful format. Things should be a little clearer now and the diverse and continuing coverage more evident. Artw (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind that a blog is not a reliable news source, such the specific blog.villagevoice tabloid. Keiiri (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not aware of a decision that The Village Voice is unacceptable from a WP:RS point of view. Regardless, there are many other sources. Artw (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not the specific blog part of it, no. I don't consider any blogs, especially of a tabloid, to be RS. Keiiri (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Village Voice is printed in 11" x 17", which is the 'Tabloid (newspaper format), but it is not Tabloid journalism -- an elementary and important distinction. The Village voice has received three Pulitzer Prices and published many highly-regarded writers including Henry Miller, E.E. Cummings, and Allen Ginsberg. It is not, e.g., The National Enquirer. In addition to its weekly print edition it publishes a news blog -- not to be confused with some random individual's blog that is not affiliated with a newspaper. Benefac (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • For what it's worth, we have a policy on this: WP:NEWSBLOG, which points out that such blogs might not be subject to the same fact-checking procedures as other work published by the same organisation, but suggests they're likely to be reliable if they are. In this case it's worth adding to the honours mentioned by User:Benefac that the Village Voice's website "has twice been recognized as one of the nation's premier online sites for journalistic quality and local content. The site is a past winner of both the National Press Foundation's Online Journalism Award and the Editor and Publisher Eppy Award for Best Overall U.S. Weekly Newspaper Online." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks Arms & Hearts, although it still doesn't really establish its notability. However, you are the only person on the keep that I honestly agree with for far, so thanks. Keiiri (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per ArtW. Also WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No evidence has been provided to justify keeping this article. It simply does not meet the WP:EVENT notability guidelines. It doesn't matter whether it was "covered by the international media", because we are not a newspaper. Regardless, as my colleague said above, I do not see any evidence of this "coverage". This event has had no continued coverage, no lasting impact, no coverage in a diverse variety of sources outside the occasional wire piece, and only affects a small area. It simply doesn't meet any of the criteria above. I like that we have people saying "also WP:GNG". It is quite clear they've not read the criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 03:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent reference in the article appears to be from the 10th of December, well after the shooting, and concerns an ongoing investigation.Looking at the last few days I see continued mentions in articles regarding the recent spare of police shootings [12] [13] as well as the Village Voice including it in their summary of the year in NYPD PR disasters.[14] There's also a renewed focus on the housing and maintenance issues which led to Akai's death.[15][16][17]. I'm not seeing this going away anytime soon. Artw (talk) 1a6:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect per WP:NOTNEWS. This tragedy may have been covered in multiple media, but without a reason for notability on its own, it won't hold up and it may easily be redirected to New_York_City_Police_Department_corruption_and_misconduct, being one of dozens of such examples. Epicgenius (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that the NYPD is racking up quite the body count does not diminish the notability of any particular incident, and the press has covered this one.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the other Keep rationales plus the fact that 1) Akai's family is calling for a rally on Saturday defying the mayor's call for a suspension of demonstrations, so the reaction to the killing is a testing of the 1st amendment in a city with a new liberal mayor 2) The decision of the grand jury on this case will define the first part of the career of newly-elected Brooklyn district attorney, Kenneth Thompson.--Aichik (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Also appeared in the intro question in this forum between contemporary philosophers in the New York Times. --Aichik (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That last source was a blog, and none of the sources indicate notability, and again WP:NOTNEWS. Keiiri (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of the article is notable, worthy of notice; significant and interesting enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. It clearly meets the criteria for inclusion in General Notability WP:GNG and Events WP:EVENTS. It has received extensive and ongoing coverage in highly reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. There are many informed avenues for developing this article. This event has demonstrated lasting effect, has already had widespread national impact and has been very widely covered in diverse sources (WP:DIVERSE), including 29,000 Google News hits (and 500,000 general Google hits). It has frequently been re-analyzed afterwards. It has already shown WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE / WP:PERSISTENCE. The event shows lasting effects, geographical scope, depth of coverage, duration of coverage, and diversity of sources. Maintaining a general article on 2014 police-violence protests and separate articles on notable instances of police violence is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This event is notable by itself. It has created lasting effects. A Google News search of <"Akai Gurley"> sorted by Date reveals articles in reliable sources in almost every day since the shooting. It is false and preposterous to suggest that no media is covering it. (Given the extensive press coverage of this case, from the day it took place until now, to suggest that it be deleted raises questions of WP:BIAS.) The consensus to keep seems strong. It would not be appropriate nor encylopedic to try and combine this and similar cases into just one article. Such an article would be too long and clunky. Not every case needs a separate article, but the most significant ones do, and this event qualifies. The separate topics already have been expanded into longer standalone articles. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles. The standalone articles are not duplicates, they do not overlap in enough ways to warrant merging, they each have significant independent text, and they do not need to be presented together to have sufficient context (as with characters from a novel, per WP:MERGE). Benefac (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to back up your statement instead of copy and pasting. A quick look at major sites like Yahoo and CNN show no ongoing coverage. Keiiri (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling-down on your falsehood does not make it any truer. If you want to make claims like there is no "media covering [this] right now at all" (as you did on Dec 18), when others have provided clear links to reliable sources that run counter to your assertion, then it is your obligation to prove your (false) claim. Likewise, if you want to claim that there is "no ongoing coverage" on "major sites" as you did on Dec 28, then it is your obligation to prove it. But you can't -- because it is not true. (WP:Weasel-words like "I don't see," "right now," "like Yahoo and CNN," or "a quick look" do not remove this burden of proof from you.) A very simple google search reveals many such articles; a few are listed below. Google ist dein Freund. I will not do research like this for you again. Your lack of WP:GOODFAITH as an editor in RfD and/or your inability to conduct the most basic internet research is noted.

"Akai Gurley Protest Draws Hundreds In Brooklyn," by Benjamin Hart, Huffington Post, Posted: 12/27/2014 5:24 pm EST Updated: 5 hours ago, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/27/akai-gurley-protests_n_6385234.html

"Protesters March Demanding Justice In Officer Shooting That Killed Akai Gurley," CBS News, December 27, 2014 9:50 PM, http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/27/protesters-march-demanding-justice-in-officer-shooting-that-killed-akai-gurley/

"Akai Gurley’s family leads march in protest of the Brooklyn man’s NYPD shooting death," Posted 5:00 PM, December 27, 2014, by Andrea Cavallier and Associated Press, Updated at 11:29pm, December 27, 2014, http://pix11.com/2014/12/27/akai-gurleys-family-leads-march-in-protest-of-the-brooklyn-mans-nypd-shooting-death/

"Hundreds of protesters march in Brooklyn demanding justice for Akai Gurley," BY Jan Ransom, Rich Schapiro, New York Daily News, Published: Saturday, December 27, 2014, 9:25 PM, Updated: Saturday, December 27, 2014, 9:30 PM, http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/hundreds-march-brooklyn-demanding-justice-akai-gurley-article-1.2058434

"Protesters stage anti-cop rally at Akai Gurley slay site," New York Post, By Ben Feuerherd, Beckie Strum, Natasha Velez and Susan Edelman, December 28, 2014 | 4:13am http://nypost.com/2014/12/28/protesters-stage-anti-cop-rally-at-akai-gurley-slay-site/

This extends to international coverage as well, e.g.:

"A Woman Demanding Justice for Akai Gurley," Economic Times of India, December 28, 2014, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/slideshows/day-in-pics/december-28-2014/a-woman-demanding-justice-for-akai-gurley/slideshow/45664440.cms

"‘Wake Up!’ 1000s take to streets across US protesting police brutality," December 28, 2014 10:27, Russia Today, http://rt.com/usa/218159-usa-anti-police-demonstration/

Etc. That's just for Dec 27-28. Benefac (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, Arms & Hearts already pointed out the recent protest. There was nothing from Dec 17-26 when this was opened, and the mostly-local coverage still doesn't indicate notability. Keiiri (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the sources, you should probably go ahead and incorporate the best of them into the article.

Keiiri - you seem to be actively upset the article is being improved, that's a remarkably poor attitude. I would suggest either assisting or stepping away - theres certainly no reason for you to jump on everyone who is helping out. Artw (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not jumping on anyone, and Benefec's personal attacks isn't helping his case. And Benefac hasn't done anything except being canvassed. You also really need to take a chill pill, I'm not the one getting all worked up for no reason. Keiiri (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal attacks. I simply reported the truth. Once again, this statement is false: "There was nothing from Dec 17-26 when this [AfD] was opened." This is not true. I write this not as an attack, but as a statement of fact, easily verified through basic google searches. Likewise, to refer to "the mostly-local coverage" is misleading, as indicated by the national and international WP:Reliable sources referenced above. Artw is doing a fine job of editing this article; please feel free to include any sources referenced here, thanks. Benefac (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Then how about you try giving an example of what happened on Dec 17-26 when this was opened? Nothing even happened for weeks before that. Your first comment above was indeed nothing but personal attacks, and I request that you tone it down a bit. And the local New York, Brooklynn coverage is indeed mostly local-coverage. It still doesn't indicate notability. And again, WP:NOTNEWS. Would this "world-changing" event have any WP:LASTING historical or encyclopedic interest in 100 years? No. It's just getting news coverage because of so many of the cop-shoots-black-man stories recently. How about all the other people shot by cops also? Keiiri (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated above, I will not again do basic google research for you. I have not engaged in personal attacks, I have stated facts. If you would like tips on basic google search techniques I am happy to help you. E.g., in a browser search box type the name in quotation marks, "Akai Gurley." Click on "News" to select news sources. (You'll note there are now 45,000 articles about Akai Gurley.) Click on Search Tools, and then click again in the drop-down menu where it says Sorted By Relevance, and change this to Sorted by Date. Now scroll to the bottom of the page, and click on the Next button to advance in reverse chronology. Continue until the dates you seek appear. Now choose the most reliable of these sources. Please let me know if you have questions on this. Yes there is local NYC coverage, not surprisingly so, and yes there is also broader regional, national, and international coverage of this event. In any case, this event has now achieved widespread news coverage, public discussion, and has influenced other events.

Wikipedia is not a compendium of 'world-changing' events, this is not a criteria for inclusion of articles in Wikipedia. Yes, it seems likely there will be WP:Lasting interest in this article. (As there is interest in articles on many individual cases.) This police killing of this US citizen who simply walked up the stairs to his apartment, has received widespread national news coverage. This is not a routine local event. Many major newspapers have published articles including this incident in the context of national debates about racial profiling and police shootings of unarmed young African-American males. Coverage has been widespread and ongoing. These incidents will clearly be the subject of long-term historical analysis, and one of Wikipedia's functions is to document this type of thing, and to collect and catalogue the full range of reliable sources covering the incident, for the benefit of future researchers. This is notable. You seem bothered by or resentful of news coverage about American police shooting black men, and you seem to want articles on people of other races who are shot by cops. Perhaps you should back away from articles about the former, and write articles on the latter. Benefac (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All that you still can't even say what happened on Dec 10-26. Other than the recent local protest, it still doesn't indicate notability. The local New York, Brooklynn coverage is indeed mostly local-coverage. There's nothing on the major sites like Yahoo, BBC, CNN, or Reuters, and you never even hear of this case. Keiiri (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no reason for any editor to disprove your false claims, nor to conduct this basic research for you, this would be a WP:Waste of time. There are now 1.2 million google hits for <akai gurley>, including 45,000 hits in Google's News section. You are welcome to contribute to the article by choosing reliable sources on certain dates if you think this is important. I provided detailed steps for you to find these, in case you were having difficulty. Responding to the points above, including to the specific citations from widespread reliable sources, might be more productive than simply repeating the same denials. Yes, tautologically the "local New York, Brooklynn [sic] coverage is indeed local." The national coverage about this event is national. And the international coverage about this event is international. There is coverage about the homicide of Akai Gurley and its aftermath on most major sites, including BBC[18], CNN[19], and Reuters[20]; you are wrong about this. On Yahoo[21], too (its reliability varies). More generally, I don't think you're suggesting that Wikipedia can only include articles with citations on dates you personally specify and from news sources you specify -- if so, you might want to start your own wiki. (The Wikipedia software is open-source.) My experience is that most editors who study these general topic areas (e.g., Police brutality in the United States, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, Civil and political rights, New York City Police Department, New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct, Racism, Racism in the United States, Racial profiling, Race and crime in the United States, African-American history, etc.) have heard of this case. Benefac (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You still can't say what happened from Dec 10-26. If there is really significant coverage everyday like you claim, then you should have no trouble finding recent sources from BBC, CNN, or Reuters, not old ones. That 22 second video about a local protest doesn't indicate notability. Nothing happened from from Dec 29 to now either, so your claim about it lasting and being frequently re-analyzed are false. The number of hits are also small compared to other events like the shooting of Antonio Martin. Your personal attacks are also not helping you either. Keiiri (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - So many white-cop-shoots-black-man stories in the news lately that they are too many to count. With this article, does this mean there has to be an article about EVERY similar incident that occurs, post-Michael Brown shooting in the least? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: no. At least 1,084 people have been killed by U.S. police since January 1, 2014. Black men (on average) are killed by police about 20 times as often as white men.[22] There may not need to be an article about every such killing. However, those that become a significant focal point, as judged in part by extensive news coverage and by their impact in shaping events, do deserve articles. The Shooting of Akai Gurley is one such notable event. Benefac (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whether or not this meets WP:EVENT is, as always, something of a judgement call, but I think the recent demonstration, which received significant coverage more than a month after Gurley's death, is a good sign that this event has the lasting effects and persistence we require. Given that police killings of black men in the U.S. are something the media are taking an interest in, I think this is likely to continue to receive coverage. I'd certainly rather we keep an article that meets WP:GNG but might take a while to conclusively satisfy EVENT than delete it only to later find it needs to be resurrected. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Of course this article should be kept, for all the policy reasons outlined above, and more. The suggestion that this is only local news flies in the face of ongoing articles about this event across the USA and around the world, including in major periodicals in nearly every major language worldwide.[23][24][25][26][27][28] Deutschsprachige Zeitungen waren unzureichend zu diesem Thema, vielleicht? Eugene Banks (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. Those sources are also old, and do not demonstrate a lasting effect. Keiiri (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the sources are sufficient to demonstrate the lasting notability of this incident. Robofish (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Benefac was the one who voted "keep" multiple times every time he commented here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of John Crawford III before another user striked out his multiple votes. 172.56.17.46 (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and was frankly less disruptive than some allegedly more experienced editors on that page. Do you have a point relating to this article or this AFD discussion, IP User? Artw (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, IP User 172.56.17.46, and thanks for your second Wikipedia edit. Yes, readers may read all about my mistake (in a separate WP article) where I initially thought one should label all one's comments, here[29]. What's your point? Please note that AfD discussions are not a 'vote'. Benefac (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  10:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Feldman (consultant)[edit]

Michael Feldman (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Despite having 12 well-formatted sources, I have not found any that are actually acceptable/verify notability. Citations used are a mix of press release, brief mentions, interviews, quotes, award sites and other low-quality sources that create the appearance of it having strong sources, whereas it doesn't actually. Part of a much-needed cleanup of category:American public relations people. CorporateM (Talk) 03:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—As the creator of this article it may or may not go without saying that I believe it should be kept. Feldman is a co-founder of the DC-based communications firm Glover Park Group, and is also known for being one of a few close aides to Vice President Al Gore who persuaded him to seek a recount in the 2000 presidential election. He hasn't sought much attention for himself, but it has still found him; needless to say, I disagree with the nominator's summary of the sources. Rather than placing this article in the mainspace itself, I took my proposed draft to WikiProject Cooperation for consideration, where it was approved and moved into mainspace by User:Silver seren (whom it appears was not notified of this AfD). Since the article's creation, Feldman has married Today Show co-host Savannah Guthrie, generating several news stories based on the premise that Guthrie's husband is, well, notable—in the Washington Post and NY Daily News, among others. Another recent article by The Hollywood Reporter has called him "Hollywood's D.C. Spin Doctor". I respectfully suggest this nomination be withdrawn.

Disclosure number one: I initiated the creation of this article as a consultant on behalf of Feldman's firm. Disclosure number two: the nominator is also a consultant to firms seeking to work with Wikipedia, a fact I believe he should have disclosed as well. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A vanity article that has been paid for to appear on Wikipedia. Scraped-up poor sourcing and overall WP:GNG failure. The sort of thing which (rightly) gives Wikipedia a bad name. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The sourcing was fine before and can be better now. Simply asserting it fails WP:GNG does not make it so. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" not (as the nom rightly puts it) the "mix of press release, brief mentions, interviews, quotes, award sites and other low-quality sources" that have been eked out in an attempt to make something of this topic. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, all of the phrases in the WP:GNG are open to interpretation—it wouldn't be Wikipedia otherwise. However, let's take a look at the claim to notability and sum of coverage, including sources in the current entry and some not included now:

• Claim to notability—Mr. Feldman is the co-founder and managing director of a national PR firm recently acquired by WPP group, and known for consulting on political topics for Hollywood. He was a high-ranking White House aide who played a role in persuading Vice President Al Gore to seek a recount in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, and he is married to a current co-host of the Today Show. This is hardly the profile of a non-notable figure to which the term "vanity article" usually applies. Instead, it easily meets the "worthy of notice" standard of WP:BIO.

• Sources and GNG—Indeed there are some press releases and official pages used to verify some information that cannot be found elsewhere—a legitimate use following WP:PRIMARY that such sources are appropriate if used to verify "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". They are not intended to demonstrate notability.

Meanwhile, Feldman's involvement in the recount has appeared in mainstream newspapers such as The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. And while not presently included in the article, Feldman's significant role in the Gore-Lieberman campaign was covered extensively by Dana Milbank in his book Smash Mouth.

In case The Hollywood Reporter story (linked above but not included in the current article) is being dismissed as an "interview", it is clearly a profile including a Q&A.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post coverage of his engagement is brief, and the New York Daily News coverage of his wedding is sensational, but that's entertainment news on the web for you, and it is staff-generated content from undoubtedly WP:RELIABLE sources.

The fact that I was compensated for writing and seeking placement for this article's inclusion is notably absent from WP:DELETE's list of acceptable reasons for deletion and should not be a factor one way or another. However, I must stress again that I did not place the article into mainspace myself; this was a decision made by an independent editor.

Given the above, I think Feldman's notability is clear and again I request this AFD be withdrawn. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per WP:BARE. I'd like to see more sources added to the article, but even now it appears that this person is notable for his work on Gore's presidential campaign. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as a puff piece created by a paid editor. Alexbrn said it well above. Paid editor grasping at straws above to save article (using an engagement announcement to support notability? really??). I wonder if the paid editor has to refund the fees if the article is deleted. Hmm.. The Dissident Aggressor 20:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DissidentAggressor, which of the traditional WP:DEL#REASONs do you consider applicable to this article? As far as I can tell, your argument is simply that you WP:DONTLIKE it. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, Alexbrn said it well: No GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 22:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - People seem obsessed with the whole paid thing and seemingly ignoring everything else because of that. I'll note, one of the delete votes, who won't give a decent reason why it is under WP:GNG, has filled his userpage with a essay on paid contributors. I don't personally agree with paid editing but - the article is more neutral than many unpaid things I've read on Wiki and the creator actually got it approved by an independent editor first. It's also rich given the AfD nominator is a paid editor as well. In addition, WP:BEFORE applies. A quick google found extensive coverage of him, such as profiles because of the marriage in places like E! Online and the Daily Mail, which like it or not do have huge readership. Now, if we go back to before his marriage was all the news could talk about, I found things like this profile in Hollywood Reporter. All together, definitely keep. JT_dale^Talk~ 03:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: non-notable lower-echelon political operative segues into PR and pays for an article? <blink> It's still here?--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babloo Prithiveeraj[edit]

Babloo Prithiveeraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG VanishingRainbow (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom fails NACTOR + GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -Having featured in multiple notable films, subject may meet the WP:NACTOR criteria #1. It's v tough to find Tamil language sources unless one is native of. I've found two in English however, IBN Live, FilmiBeat. I think, subject merits an article on Wikipedia. Anyone passing by this afd and know how to type Tamil, please give this search engine a try in Tamil language. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment actor is not notable there was widespread coverage of an event when officials at Bangalore Airport when they prevented his 11-year old autistic son Ahed from boarding an aeroplane reasoning that he was mentally and not fit to fly IBN Live, FilmiBeat. This is WP:NEWS VanishingRainbow (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable and fails WP:GNG.182.65.160.225 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as Keep. There is 1 argument for delete. A merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page, or someone can WP:BOLDly merge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tram and trolleybus routes in Tallinn[edit]

List of tram and trolleybus routes in Tallinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not really seeing any point to this article - Article only includes 14 routes and a map ... All of which is more suited to a timetable rather than an encyclopedia. Can't find a shred of notability anywhere, I wouldn't object it being Merged to Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS since that article isn't that brilliant at the moment, Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "WP is not a directory, etc." Borock (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS, which can easily incorporate this content. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS since that company operates the routes. Altamel (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's pretty obvious what the point of an article called "List of tram and trolleybus routes in Tallinn" is. Whether or not what's in it is what you would find in a timetable is completely irrelevant - since this list clearly isn't trying to be a timetable (based on what information it doesn't include), it doesn't violate NOTTIMETABLE (which was presumably the inference of the comparison). As to notability - as in previous cases, I doubt very much that Davey expended any effort at all to find evidence of notability, other than a brief Google search. Taking a common sense view, since Tallin is the capital city of a European country which has (if Wikipedia is a reliable source) had trams since 1888, and since trams and trolleybuses are elements of fixed infrastructure that take considerable amounts of money and construction to implement, it's inconceivable that such a system has never received significant coverage. If we take the UK as an example, hundreds, if not thousands, of books have been written about the history and development of the various trams and trolleybus systems, which obviously includes listing the routes as part of that coverage. If anyone had been daft enough to take the time and effort to read all available books in order to create List of tram and trolleybus routes in London for example (unsurprisingly, nobody has yet), I seriously doubt there would be anyone here entertaining the idea that such a list was pointless and not-notable, and obviously nobody would be able to say it was a timetable, since they ceased to run over 50 years ago. I also don't think anyone would be arguing to have it in the London Transport article instead. On that point I find it particularly bizarre Davey claims the information is pointless, but also thinks it would actually improve the article about the operator if put there. Pointless information is pointless, wherever you put it, surely? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I planned on adding it without the tables as well overall improve the article but fuck it you can do it .....Since you decided to open this you can merge it to the damn article, Good luck!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS per above. Expand that article. This is an unnecessary content fork. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A list of trolleybus routes is about as much of a content fork of the bus operator's article as a list of BMW cars is a fork of the BMW article. If this list was about London's trolleybus routes, then I doubt anyone would be claiming it should be merged into London Transport. Nobody is going to expand that operator article. In fact, while this discussion was going on, Davey has also been busy trying to make the operator article smaller too - apparently readers of Wikipedia don't need to know what types of buses the largest bus operator in Tallin actually operates, as it's probably out of date now (note that he didn't even bother to check they are, he did that merely on the assumption that it is). And obviously, what types it might have used in the past (if they have indeed been replaced), is obviously not encyclopedic information! Who cares what buses were trundling up and down Tallin's streets in the 1950s? Not Davey. Not anyone on Wikipedia it seems. What is more likely to happen is that once this list is merged, then later on, it will be deleted from there by Davey because it fails NOTDIR or NOTTRAVEL or NOTwhatever, since doing that doesn't actually require any discussion at all. He's done this many times to other operator articles. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing here that can't be discussed at that article; thus, this meets my definition of unnecessary as a standalone article. Unless I'm missing something, and there is and/or has been more than one operator that operates these services in Tallinn, this article is, to use your example, the sort of split that "list of cars produced by BMW" would be if BMW only produced one model of car. If, in the future, it can be expanded in the future to where its length would be burdensome at the operator's article and/or content about other operators could be included, then it can be re-split. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be missing a lot of things here. Firstly, you're apparently assuming this list is complete - have you verified that? Do you know for certain this is as long as it needs to be to reflect the current system? I am pretty sure Davey didn't. Second, according to Public transport in Tallinn, the Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS/Tallinn Bus Company has only operated the trolleybuses and trams since 2012. I would say, given that this list could also potentially include information on historical routes (which go back to 1888), it doesn't make much sense putting it into the article about that company. Also note that I am in the process of rescuing the bus route list too (also deleted by Davey), and it looks like that's gong to happen, so it's going to look quite odd if the bus operator article contains the tram and trolleybus route list within it, but will also link to the diesel bus route list as a separate entity. There's also the issue of the name - why is the 'Tallinn Bus Company' filed on English Wikipedia under it's Estonian name anyway? Is that even the correct, current translation? Wouldn't it have changed in 2012 to reflect the fact trams are not buses? And if it is the right name, even if it was under its English name, why would anyone think to look at the article on the 'Tallinn Bus Company' for a list of tram routes? It's surely far more sensible to do what is done for many other tram systems, and split this list into two, one to cover Trams in Tallin and another to cover Trolleybuses in Tallin. I think the biggest thing you are missing about all this though is the fact that this discussion is not happening because Davey is in any way interested in improving the presentation or organisation (or indeed factual accuracy) of information on Wikipedia about the Tallin transport system, it's only being had because of his apparent total disgust at the fact Wikipedia has any list in it about bus/trolleybus/tram routes at all. Deleting them outright is apparently not going to work here, so he's taking the next best option and shunting it into an article where it's arguably not going to be found (easily/intuitively at least), and where he can quietly remove it from later on (as he has done before). In that context, if it was merged, then if the system did suddenly expand or someone improved the list so that is was now overwhelming the host article, I suspect Davey would be right there opposing any split, using the 'merge' decision here as the reason to do so. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my reasoning and, in fact, I concede some of the very points you make. Perhaps if you drop the battleground attitude, you might recognize that. That being said, I have zero desire to respond to what is ultimately just another bad-faith jab at Davey2010. Good day. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - no need (as yet) for a standalone article. Of course a list of BMW cars would be a fork of the BMW article, but its an appropriate split per WP:SPLIT. Notforlackofeffort, you seem intent on criticising a lack of information here and there but don't seem willing to spend any time fixing the problem. This is a project of collaborative construction. You seem to be here to argue (and in ways that totally miss the point of most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines). You also don't seem to like being here - suggest you find a different project to get pointlessly angry about. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Please enlighten me about which rules I have totally missed the point of? I keep asking questions like that, and yet I keep getting ignored, on this so-called collaborative project. As soon as people stop ignoring me, then perhaps I might consider the equation of 10 hours work to 'fix' what it takes others 10 minutes to delete, even though they clearly know nothing about it and are less than collaborative when it comes to them explaining why they think rule X means outcome Y to them, might actually be worth it. In this case for example, it would take several hours to fix this list (or several hundred to do a proper job, which would obviously include learn the Estonian language). And why does it need 'fixing'? Simply because Davey apparently doesn't even think that information like where the trams and trolleybuses of a major European city go is "encyclopedic". I'm guessing the publishers of the World Trolleybus Encyclopaedia really dropped the ball. If you recognise that title Dave, it's because it's used all over Wikipedia as a reference! In all the articles about trolleybuses. Many of which appear to have, shock horror, lists of routes in them (I suppose you haven't got around to 'fixing' these yet). Anyway Stewart, you were saying about how it's pointless complaining about stuff like this happening on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia...... Notforlackofeffort (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Encyclopedic for any major city. It's not a timetable, which, as should be obvious, inclusdes detailssuch as times. The times are subject to rapid change; the basic routes, much less so. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mean to sound funny but .... what's encyclopedic about it ? .... IMHO this is as about as unencyclopedic as it can get..... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid you really do sound funny when you say things like this. Especially given your previous claims to be a bus enthusiast and know a lot about buses. In the real world, lots of books and magazine articles have been written about trams and trolleybuses, and even if you've never read a single one (which I suspect is the case), you should probably be able to work out using simple common sense that detailing where they ran/run forms a big part of that exercise (and obviously I'm not even remotely talking about publications which are designed to be 'travel guides' here). Some authors even present this information in tabular format, for the convenience or the reader. You know, just like the sort of tables you keep deleting from bus operator articles on Wikipedia. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:NOTDIR does not apply. Reasonable article, better than a pure stub, for Wikipedia:TRAM. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No but GNG applies which this doesn't meet.... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Could be expanded and cited with more sources. Noteswork (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right it could be expanded but wouldn't it be better off in the Parents article as then that way that article could be filled up (there's barely anything there as it is!), Other than there website there is no other sources (that I can find anyway). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 15:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the most enthusiastic keep !voter here has now been indef'd for harassment and his... contribution... should probably be seen for what it is. For those who have suggested this be kept (rather than merged, from where it can always be split out later), I'm curious to know why you don't think these 11 lines (of content) would make another article so unreasonably large that this requires its own article? St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Tallinna Linnatranspordi AS. This is not a travel guide. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Santos[edit]

Manny Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Brodie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Michalchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinner Mason, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nuñez, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Hogart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character) which were all closed as redirect/merge/delete. This is another character without any sufficient coverage to source an article. The article is currently full of plot details. Gloss 06:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In-universe bio of a fictional character, with no real-world context to demonstrate that he would qualify for a standalone article — this kind of thing belongs on a Degrassi fansite, not an encyclopedia. Redirect per nom. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Allweier[edit]

Karl Allweier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to have had some success, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Created by WP:SPA, possible WP:COI. Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject does not seem to be notable and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Thanks to User:Medgirl131, there are now plenty of references to reliable sources. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethallobarbital[edit]

Ethallobarbital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Page tags state that any unreferenced material may be challenged and removed - the whole article has been utterly unreferenced since the placement of the tag more than 5 years ago. The article has been edited twice since 2011 and nothing meaningful has been added whatsoever. Since the whole article is unreferenced, I challenge it per the tags and instructions, and suggest its removal. CharlieTheCabbie|Yack to the driver 00:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References, albeit indirect, are provided: the PubChem entry is sufficient evidence, I think. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider PubChem an appropriate reference. It just says the drug exists. The article claims it's a barbituate derivative, which PubChem does not reference. It says lots of different names for the drug, but nothing which says what it is. CharlieTheCabbie|Yack to the driver 01:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For references to more in-depth literature, see [30]. Sources have to exist for an article to be kept; they do not have to be in the article. (Also, I don't know much about chemistry, but isn't it self-evident that it is a barbiturate derivative? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Restoring accidentally deleted comment): Note that one source gives a slightly different structure and chemical formula for Ethallobarbital: [31] הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Poor article doesn't mean that the subject doesn't deserve an article. I agree that it needs to be expanded. There are no articles on Pubmed about this specific barbiturate, but it might be used in veterinary medicine. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that I have notified the Pharmacology Wikiproject about this AFD with a view to them repairing or rescuing this article by expanding it. Thanks :) CharlieTheCabbie|Yack to the driver 10:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Luxe[edit]

Bikini Luxe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG and no independent sources are available whatsoever. Article claims features in a couple of reputable magazines, though these claims seem unfounded: Cosmo on Google (Cosmo's search is useless...), shape.com, Shape on Google. Also Candice Galek 1 and 2. Nikthestunned 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have to say about sources such as Yahoo, travel weekly, digital journal, ABC (dead link), CBS. They are not notable?. --Karlhard (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, they are all press releases, which don't count towards notability per WP:ORGIND. Press releases are written by the company and so are not independent. (Why would you include a dead link also? That doesn't help at all...) Nikthestunned 15:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Found multiple third-party sources that are definitely not press releases: [32] [33] [34] [35]. —CodeHydro 16:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a wordpress blog and so isn't reliable (also does read *exactly* like a press release despite your assertion!). The last is also a blog, if paid, per the disclosure. Of the other two, simandan.com doesn't look remotely reliable (looks like a random personal page) and noragouma.com fails WP:ORGIND for consisting solely of an interview (it's not independent if the information comes straight from the company owner). All of these look promotional also, given the wording etc. Nikthestunned 16:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Most information on any organization can be traced to the organization itself. WP:Independent does not require the information to be independent, only that the source deciding to publish the information decides that it is worth publishing independently. Press releases fail because those are published automatically and without editorial review. Interviews however do require the third party to ask questions and then decide if it's worth talking about them. While the sources I provide may sound promotional, the most important point is that the decision to publish them is not in the hands of the company. Heck, if I like a product, I will rant and rave reviews about it even if the company doesn't pay me a dime. —CodeHydro 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So by my count we've one ref of dubious significance, doesn't sound like widespread coverage to me. Nikthestunned 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Have expanded the article third party sources [36], [37], and [38] in addition to the ones mentioned in my previous source. Note that while the first of this second set is a blog, it does bill itself as an "independent fashion blogger" at the bottom of the page. Admittedly many of these sources are popular blogs, such is normal when dealing with relatively new phenomenon as it takes time for more traditional sources to catch up. I would certainly be open to bringing this article back to AfD in a year to review its notability in other sources. —CodeHydro 17:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BITE. As a final note, the original author only joined Wiki in September of this year but has already editted over 300 unique pages [39]. As per WP:Bite, we have to be more lenient on notability in order to avoid discouraging new and potentially valuable members of our community. —CodeHydro 18:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not going to change in that time - articles should be deleted if they fall outside of policy - no amount of edits done will make these three companies notable, so why wait a while? The new editor is clearly competent enough to create some decent articles, I went through and fixed up one so I'm fully aware of that. Doesn't change matters for these three, however. Nikthestunned 18:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy (!vote) is much preferred over deletion for novice editors, though I still think there is enough evidence for a keep here. —CodeHydro 18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One ref (of dubious significance or not) is not enough per say it's "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", unless you've some RS you've yet to add to the page. Nikthestunned 18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which it doesn't meet - I've seen no evidence of ""Significant coverage" [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail", per the above. Nikthestunned 09:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as meets GNG, Sure the sources aren't exactly spectacular but you work with what you have .... Deleting it IMHO seems pointless, I think the noms had to much to drink over the xmas period .... or perhaps I'm pissed hence this !vote .... Who knows eh –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Welp I guess I'll withdraw the AfD then, even though I do still think this fails GNG I'm clearly in the minority. Nikthestunned 16:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Killing of Dave Owen Ward. There doesn't seem to be much notability apart from the murder case, although the article on the killing barely seems notable either. However, as long as that article exists, this seems to be a reasonable redirect target. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Oren Ward[edit]

Dave Oren Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A grand total of four credits in all low-budget, unheard-of, and obscure 90s indie films - article appears to being used to host detail of a not notable death/accidental killing - deletion discussion is connected to the Nate Moore (actor) deletion discussion. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Govindaharihari (talk) 12:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is tied closely to another and a corresponding AfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nate_Moore_(actor). --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is notable with reliable sources, an editor keeps vandalizing the Dave Oren Ward article as well as the Nate Moore (actor) article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Editors such as Factchecker0818 and Hemi.pwr may be the sockpuppet accounts of the actor Nate Moore (actor) who pled guilty to the crime of killing actor Dave Oren Ward and now wants the information taken offline. That's just a guess, a suspicion. Or maybe it is someone else involved in this tragedy between these two actors. Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION FOR ADMIN: IS THE PRECEDING COMMENT BY USER:NEPTUNE'S TRIDENT AN ATTEMPT OF WP:OUTING?! OR WP:DOX ? IS THIS APPROPRIATE FOR AN EDITOR WHO HAS SO MUCH EXPERIENCE AND SHOULD KNOW THE WP:HA POLICY RE WP:PRIVACY?98.126.15.219 (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Another example of user Neptune trident Attempting to WP:OUT in this case, a second attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nate_Moore_(actor)&diff=639600295&oldid=63959999300:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)98.126.15.219 (talk)

Delete - While the incident of this actor's killing is notable, the actual actor does not appear to be notable enough to warrant their own Wikipedia article. Worlds Famous Cypress Hill (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The problem here is that I'm having a bit of trouble asserting that his roles are really all that notable. So far I'm only finding a small handful of sources for the films as a whole and none of them really mention DOW. Other than his death, the guy didn't seem to really gain that much attention. There's already an article at Killing of Dave Owen Ward, although I'm kind of leery of whether or not that really warrants an article since the entire thing didn't really garner a huge amount of coverage. Assuming that the page for the killing remains on Wikipedia it could redirect there, but barring that I'd suggest a delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, that article was created in response the multiple censorship attempts that involved Sockpuppetry by Shark310 and their Edit Warring over specific information in this and the Moore article. As soon as this can be closed, both of those can be converted to redirects. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In my opinion neither David Oren Ward nor Nate Moore, nor the crime, are notable. The article should be deleted. The crime did not go to trial, it was plea-bargained and therefore facts of the case were never substantiated by trial. Evidence of Plea Bargain The case itself did not set any type of precedent, it was not appealed, and the crime itself did not garner any publicity subsequent to the instant offense. Additional evidence of plea bargain without trial. The entire subject appears to be an isolated incident and not worthy of note in Wikipedia. I would recommend delete.--Bobbynow (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bobbynow, seems like you're new to Wikipedia. 2 edits in May, then a post here, did you have another or maybe previous account? BTW, findadeath.com is not considered a reliable source. Shark310 even commented there as well in defense of Moore and to belittle Ward. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updated - The link has been updated to The Guardian, a reputable source, which confirms Moore took a plea to manslaughter and there was no trial. Link to Updated Source, findadeath.com removed.

Keep - and rename to Murder of Dave Oren Ward or Death of... It is his murder that is the most notable. even though he has in fact have had a few roles.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that there are already an article Killing of Dave Owen Ward, so my question is why wasnt this article just merged into that article in the first place?--BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be editorially redirected as soon as there's something to redirect to.  Sandstein  11:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walek & Associates[edit]

Walek & Associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A PR firm of only 19 employees. It has been acquired by Peppercomm, which is the focus of available sources and can be reported on the Peppercomm page. Rankings, awards and lists do not make a PR firm notable, as the PR industry has a very large volume of these. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine with the article being turned into a Redirect to Draft:Peppercomm, which seems more notable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough secondary sources to be worth a Wikipedia entry.--TMD Talk Page. 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (changed from "Keep"). Keep the material, but move/merge to WalekPeppercomm (currently a redlink), leaving a redirect behind. There is no Peppercomm (currently a redlink). [Update: Draft Peppercomm article created, and is what I prefer now as redirect target] The merged firm and/or both predecessor firms seem notable. One article can cover merged firm and be redirect target for previous firm names. CorporateM's deletion nomination seems to suggest that they assume Peppercomm to be notable. Resolved by Keeping/moving this to WalekPeppercomm. Note there are awards, e.g. this press release one that announces WalekPeppercomm to be 2014's best PR firm for hedge funds. For notability of combined topic, check also:

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

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

--doncram 22:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I find there are many misspellings of Peppercomm as "Peppercom" (e.g. 3 correct vs. 23 incorrect in a non-free national newspapers database), so try also:

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

--doncram 00:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although Peppercomm has only about 100 employees[40], a quick search in PRWeek suggests there is enough source material, including a 2014 Agency Business Report. I have used these "Business Reports" from PRWeek for other agency articles and they have been the kind of comprehensive source that is useful in building the encyclopedia. I don't think it should effect this deletion discussion (it's generally a bad idea to paste an article about Walek and rename it Peppercomm), but I would encourage someone to start a page on Peppercomm separate from this discussion. I would not be comfortable starting it myself for reasons I won't get into, but they seem to have enough source material for an article. CorporateM (Talk) 23:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, per suggestion I have started Peppercomm article, currently at Draft:Peppercomm and submitted to appear in mainspace. I can't move it myself, it requires another editor to move it to mainspace, but has been submitted and will appear in mainspace by regular Articles For Creation process. I see in the good "business report" source that the WalekPeppercomm entity is just a sub-entity of Peppercomm, which continues, so I agree with CorporateM that creating the Peppercomm article separately is best. But the Peppercomm article can serve as proper redirect target for Walek & Associates [update: and also for WalekPeppercomm]. I've included Walek & Associates in bold in the Peppercomm article and otherwise edited it to be a proper redirect target [update: though i see the bolding was removed by another editor, fine, no problem either way]. So I think it is now reasonable for this AFD to be concluded with "Redirect" decision, where the redirect target is the Peppercomm article when that article is in mainspace. The closer could make the move into mainspace, or could close with the redirect decision to be implemented when Peppercomm goes to mainspace. A redirect decision is superior to a simple Delete because it preserves the edit history and conforms to Wikipedia's promise to credit contributors per our copyright system. And it allows for acccess to the past info and it allows re-creation of an article if/when there are more substantial sources. --doncram 04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's conceivable that the WalekPeppercomm unit, which is located separately in office in Boulder, Colorado, could get spun off and go back to Walek & Associates or similar name. And be notable on its own. Probably not, but still better to have the redirect keeping edit history, IMHO. --doncram 21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. FYI - I made some copyedits, etc. to your draft. I noticed citation 3 is a self-authored piece, but left it alone. CorporateM (Talk) 08:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happily also editor User:Sarahj2107 agrees this is a reasonable resolution (thanks). The draft was quickly rejected by an AFC regular editor, but I've added more and resubmitted it. I added one more cite on that point, about the agency being Wikipedia-policy-respectful, also a "self-authored"/non-independent source, but I believe it is a true fact. And I added several more PR Week agency business reports, for 2008, 2009, 2012, because you suggested those are "comprehensive" and relatively well-regarded as RS, though I didn't find one for every year. I think there's enough there now for the article to be accepted for mainspace, but maybe some more development from the now-linked PR Week sources would help. Maybe the AFC regular editor is naturally skeptical about PR agency articles which probably often are created by COI editors (not the case here). Anyhow further improvements and/or moving it to mainspace would be welcomed. Thanks. --doncram 21:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat skeptical as well that a 100-person PR agency would qualify, but at-a-glance it looked like they may have it (someone would need to research more than I did). I try to avoid articles related to fellow members of a trade association I am in, so I didn't bother with it too much. (it is a pretty close-knit community) I noticed stuff like "the firm has an improvisational comedy culture, including a program called "Comedy Experience"" which was cited to a primary source from the company. The quote in paragraph two seems un-encyclopedic. Sam Ford's book is irrelevant to the firm page and there are too many awards (please see WP:ORGAWARDS regarding what I feel are proper sources for awards). Also I do not believe the self-authored pieces should be used. Waggener Edstrom Communications is a small(ish) PR firm page I brought up to GA status and may be a good example to follow. Not trying to beat you up for volunteering your time, but my suggestion would be that less is more. CorporateM (Talk) 00:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To CorporateM, your feedback about the editing is fine. I rather agree with you, less would be more, and what I put in could well be edited down. About the improv comedy culture, that is weak-ish and sort of synthesis-like, by me, putting together what I saw in several video links and interviews and other sources that are all probably directly from, or closely derivative to, the subject company or its people. The improv comedy slant should indeed be edited down; it would be far better to have an external source describing the improv comedy as a characteristic of the firm, and i did not find such an external source. It was me trying to make the article interesting and to verbalize what I was finding; it is fine by me if another editor ruthlessly edits that down. Or even better if someone finds better support for what i was trying. But there are multiple primary-type sources mentioning improv comedy connection, and some representation of that should be kept in the article, though maybe not in the lede. And yes the Sam Ford co-authored book also is weakish. It's relevance needs to be supported or it should be dropped. Thanks for your feedback. --doncram 22:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Move to more appropriate article name. There appears to be enough available under all the relevant company names to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a cross-namespace redirect to a draft is inappropriate, I feel the article should be deleted and a redirect only created if and when Peppercomm becomes a blue link. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete: If Peppercomm can't make notability, then neither should an entity which it now owns.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yarn) @ 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Long Time Dead (Torchwood)[edit]

Long Time Dead (Torchwood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, does not appear to satisfy WP:BK. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Feuerstein[edit]

Nate Feuerstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Also seems promotional. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Rapzilla source is a good, non-self-published, reliable source. None of the others are. Agree it feels promotional. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  10:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna (TV actor)[edit]

Krishna (TV actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT not notable actor VanishingRainbow (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable actor only upcoming.ரவீந்திரன்

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR.182.65.166.60 (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pet (BDSM)[edit]

Pet (BDSM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTDICT, article lacks sources and doesn't seem like it will ever move past a stub. Bottom (BDSM), animal play, and Dominance and submission already exist. If it's not a dicdef it reads more like a dab page. Prodded, but was removed by creator. I support deleting above all, but a merge into that article (or another appropriate article) also seems like a good idea. — kikichugirl ^inquire 04:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm inclined to go with a merge with Animal roleplay (not Animal play. That redirects to something far more wholesome). After looking at a couple of blogs on the subject though it does seem the Animal roleplay article doesn't impress upon the reader the level of submissiveness that the BDSM community seems to consider a "pet" must endure. (See: The Main Types of Submission in BDSM: Submissive, Slave and Pet and BDSM Owner and pet Relationships) It seems as if Animal roleplay specifically has something to do with animals, whereas the BDSM pet-owner relationship is more about submissiveness. These might deserve seperate articles.

Keep in mind I'm not suggesting we use those two links as sources. We'd need more reliable sources. Maybe someone from the sexuality-related parts of Wikipedia would have some? DiscantX (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ------>[reply]

• Delete - dicdef, no citations given. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – It does seem to be held together by the word, rather than a topic. If we have topics for each meaning, we should try to keep them focused. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A Google search reveals what look like two potential sources ([41] [42]) but both are more or less primary and the latter is a blog, and two isn't much. All other hits seem to be blogs, erotic fiction and other assorted non-RS pages. Merge might be good too. ekips39 07:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Marquardt[edit]

Luke Marquardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NFL player who fails WP:NGRIDIRON by never playing in a regular season game and doesn't have substantial non-WP:ROUTINE coverage to merit WP:GNG. Deadbeef 04:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 04:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 04:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Played Division 2 college football, but doesn't meet the notability standards listed at WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Astudent0 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for football players or college athletes and the only sources just show some routine sports coverage insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable former Division II college football player. Does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards) or pro football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played in a regular season game in the NFL or other major league). There is insufficient coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I would also be okay with Userfy if someone wants to take custody. Strange one this--I'm seeing a lot of coverage from a handful of sources, but it all seems to be about how he's broken his foot... again... and won't get to play... again... In other words, the subject seems to be getting press for "not achieving notability" - Is that possible? I think it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep decision seems to already be made, but seems to meet WP:GNG with [43], [44], [45], [46], and [47] and a handful of smaller refs such as [48] even if sport-specific criteria is not met. RonSigPi (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ron, at best, it's a judgment call. Of the six sources you listed above, three are blog sites (ninersnation.com, silverandblackpride.com, itsalloverfatman.com) and should not be used for purposes of determining notability; a fourth reference (blog.sfgate.com) is an online blog that was not published in the hard-copy San Francisco Chronicle and it is unclear what degree of editorial control/review the SFC exercises. Of the two remaining sources, one is from the local high school sports section of the Seattle Times, and the other is local coverage of a college football player from the local newspaper. Like I said, marginal coverage, at best, to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Given the lack of any noteworthy college or pro football career developments, it's just as easy to deem the subject non-notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, coverage is marginal, but it does exist. See RonSigPi, et. al. Wincent77 (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: True, he hasn't played a game yet, but that's because he's on-reserves due to an injury. Given that he's still employed, we've every reason to assume that he will begin appearing in games once healed. (If not, then AfD after he's off the team without accomplishment.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DWBC-TV[edit]

DWBC-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable sources covering the subject, fails to meet WP:NME. —theenjay36 (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Kind of hard to tell, but this was a TV station that broadcast US-originated content for 6 months around 1992? Per WP:BROADCAST, it still wouldn't be notable even if it comes back as a translator station for digital content. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator & as per Margin1522. I can't also find any reliable sources about the subject as what the nominator says. 112.198.79.134 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhekaha[edit]

Dhekaha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source for this, aside from the unreliable Capt. Bingley of the British Raj era, appears to be a passing mention of the clan on p. 95 of this. I've been searching over many months now, both on- and off-line. Sitush (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable article with questionable sources (if any). --Jobrot (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clan exists that doesn't mean it's notable. Jim Carter 13:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 18:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Agrama[edit]

Natasha Agrama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Undersourced BLP with no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC —Swpb^talk 01:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Brandman Agency[edit]

The Brandman Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not the subject of two, in-depth reliable sources as required by WP:CORP. A search in the leading trade magazine, PRWeek,[49] results in only blurbs repeating information from a press release and similar directories at O'Dwyers'[50]. Currently used sources are either not reliable, or are infotainment about fashion and electronics she "can't live without" - not exactly the basis of an encyclopedic biography. Whether the founder qualifies for a page is a discussion for another day. CorporateM (Talk) 04:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA article on a firm. A Highbeam search turns up some passing mentions associated with work done by the firm but I am seeing no WP:RS coverage about the firm itself. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The first paragraph states "The voice of LA's underground jazz scene, Natasha Agrama is a Hollywood born musician, artist, educator, healer, and community organizer. Born in Hollywood to a family of artists." ....- So clearly the person who wrote this is attempting to promote her so per above, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COI I'll have to say Delete. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  11:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA Labor Center[edit]

UCLA Labor Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find sufficient third-party references to show notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Everything that I'm finding is from UCLA or related labor groups. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very promotional article, with lots of puffery about its achievements. The article-sized section about the director, or rather "leader", is so POV it would never be accepted here as biography. There is not enough independent sourcing for a standalone article. I suppose it could be redirected to UCLA but I don't really see the point of a redirect from this title. --MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It should be noted that it appears this article is currently being edited as part of a student project ([51]). Antrocent (♫♬) 10:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a notable subject actively being worked on as part of a class project, concerns hopefully will be addressed. Antrocent (♫♬) 10:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid argument. But I'd be curious to hear why you think it's notable. In my view it fails WP:GNG. Also remember that per WP:NOTTA, "student editors should be treated in the same way any new editor is treated, without any special considerations that other editors do not receive." Tchaliburton (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Probably not notable based on our reckoning that individual departments of academic institutions are not notable. Note that this is an entity that has organized class WP-editing projects in the past and this may well be part of an ongoing project, so please userfy in the event of deletion. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Most such centers aren ot notable, and I have supported the deletion of dozens of them. But a few of them at the most important universities are,and this is an example. It would however need some rewriting, to remove fluff and excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked to take another look in light of recent editing. I still find that the center fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources (the Daily Bruin is not an independent source). This is not any kind of value judgment on the center's worthiness to exist, just an application of Wikipedia's notability policy. If the subject doesn't qualify for a standalone article, it could get a paragraph at the UCLA page. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I might be in agreement to merge (see "conclusion" below):

Comments: Instructions and advice found at Student assignments gives a lot of instructions to "new student editors", and they can (and should) be directed to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, however; a look for information on a "new users page" returns Wikipedia:New users that is a failed attempt to restrict "new users". Taking this into account I would say there is a slight difference between the two and some tolerance leaning towards student editors. I think this is an electronic encyclopedia for education, and with that in mind, I think we should "always" give some leeway to allowing for the education of potential new editors.

In this case our reckoning directs that notability is not inherited so the criteria for inclusion must be based on individual notability. I did not go any farther yet because I ran into a problem and have issues: This article (according to the lead) is a unit of: UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.

According to what I read we have: a)- this article that self-explains that it is a unit of (consists of four bodies), b)- another article, that is yet a department of, c)- another article (UCLA).

• • Conclusion: I commented to delete but IF the article "UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment" is acceptable then possibly a "merge" to that article. If that article is not notable there is a problem.

Suggestion: I would suggest that the teacher and possibly any potential students read the above "Wikipedia:Student assignments" especially the instructions concerning Course pages, user pages, and user names. The reason for this section is to allow students to make contributions to Wikipedia while having some over-sight. Teachers! Please observe Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion and Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG, also search on Google Books or GScholar and you get hundreds of mentions. Wincent77 (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . In the 23 days since this article was listed it has been significantly cleaned up. I find nothing promotional about the current cast and as per DGG it ought to be kept now. THis does not mean that I endorse according 'leeway' to articles created as part of an educational project. Still smarting from the IEP, I belive that the same rules for article creation should apply to everyone and that it s the role of the teachers to make that clear. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only leeway we should give them is to to over-rapidly deleted working versions. Most course now do their writing offline to avoid this, and don't add it to article space until the end of the term. This may in practice be necessary in our environment, but it's not a good solution, because the original intent that the students would benefit for ongoing criticism in mainspace, is much more in keeping with WP. There are also instances where the finished article is better than our standard in, but in a way we do not usually see, such as he detailed specific analaysis of one particular event or artwork, and people have sometimes said such articles are inappropriate for WP as excessively detailed and erudite. Actually, it's the rest of the encyclopedia which should have the long range goal of mreaching that higher and more detailed standard.We have something to learn form the best of the student work. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Byers Communication, Inc.[edit]

Byers Communication, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable & unverifiable subject. Fails WP:NME & WP:CORP. —theenjay36 (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Essentially no RS coverage, almost all Google results are mirrors or false positives, possibly a hoax. Everymorning talk 02:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator & Everymorning. I've made a quick search about the subject & found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors; probably a hoax. The article did not cite any sources either. 112.198.83.188 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Cochrane[edit]

Todd Cochrane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Self-promotional from the looks of things; has been tagged for notability for almost seven years with no resolution. Hopefully, we can resolve it one way or another now. Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He's definitely well-known in the podcasting arena, but I only found one mention of him in a mainstream publication Washington Post. Everything else is blogs and podcasting-specific web sites. LaMona (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]