< 1 June	3 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As mentioned, no prejudice to recreating this article if the subject meets the notability guidelines for inclusion in the near future. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Taubes[edit]

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

Yet another campaign brochure, sourced only to a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, about a person "notable" only as a candidate for elected office — which, as usual, is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. As always, he'll qualify for an article if he wins the election, but is not entitled to one just for having his name on a ballot. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete claim in lead doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN notability guideline. Also fails WP:GNG as there is significant press coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation if he wins the election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Not notable. Cowlibob (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - It is pretty obvious there is some meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry going on here. After giving each comment the proper weight, a clear consensus of delete appears. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Kobeck[edit]

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

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

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

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

I can't see that this meets WP:ARTIST and I can't find supporting sources in a search. Most of it is copied from the author's own site johnkobeck.com. heather walls (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not new and has been established on Wikipedia for some time. I did a google search and find numerous supporting data regarding the references. I have also verified the artists work as being listed in the permanent collections at Benedictine University in Chicago as well as The Center for Fine Art Photography in Colorado. These are highly respected institutions. I did also find auction results from Susanins in Chicago. Interestingly, when I google "contemporary fine art photography" much of the artists work dominates page one in the google image database. This kind of nit-picking is exactly what we no not need on Wikipedia. While its true there are many articles that are simply self promotion, this is clearly not one of them and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Okjaekim. Unfortunately for keeping's sake, the age of an article is not relevant. I don't know what you mean by supporting data regarding references because references should be the supporting data, and the article is currently missing reliable secondary sources. If you have a reference that shows Kobeck's work being in the permanent collections, please add it to the article and it may make all the difference. The fact that this is the only article you have worked on weakens your argument about promotion. If you have the proper sources, ending this deletion will only require adding them to the article. Thank you, heather walls (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You created the article, Okjaekim. When you added all that material, I hope that you were doing so from disinterested sources. You're right in saying that the article does not look like a simple case of self-promotion. However, the claims that it makes should be sourced all the same. As an illustration (I hope!), here's the article on a photographer that I've most recently created: it's bristling with specific sources (humdrum, but not the photographer's own site); looking for these and adding them was a pain (or a seemingly interminable series of pains), but a Wikipedia contributor has gotta do what they've gotta do. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You both make valid points. I will amend the article to include at a minimum evidence of the permanent collections. I may have to contact the institutions referenced for the direct links. I have seen them before and I know they do exist. Please allow me some time to do this. Regarding this being my only submission, I apologize. However my schedule does no permit me enough time. FYI I am currently creating a Wikki article for a scholar at SCAD (Savannah college of Art and Design) and this is taking up much of my time right now and much of his work was done prior to the internet so there are even less sources online. I have no personal interests in either of these people; but I am passionate about contemporary photography. I will however work on the sources for Kobeck this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Just so you know, references don't need to be online :) heather walls (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Update: I have included the proper evidence of Kobeck's work in the inclusion of the Permanent Collection of Benedictine University in the references here.

I have reached out to the The Center For Fine Art Photography in Boulder Co and spoke with the director; Ms Hamidah Glasgow. She informed me that they do not publish an online list of the Permanent Collection archives. However she did confirm his work as being included. I asked her if it were possible to send a letter via email for the artist to scan and upload. I have not heard back from her as of yet. I am hopeful that this will satisfy you regarding the validity of John Kobeck's work and career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Talk of correspondence with a gallery is starting to sound a bit desperate. The obvious next stage is simply to delete mention of the Center for Fine Art Photography and to provide sources for a lot of the other claims. There are all those exhibitions: what about the sources for these? (And were they solo or group?) True, there is a set of "references" at the foot of the article: which of these references is for what? (Just use <ref>reference</ref> to create a reference where it applies, and <references /> where you want the lot of them dumped. There's "Help:Referencing for beginners", or you can simply examine how it's done in some other article.) And the lead: Much of Kobeck's work is conceptual in nature, dealing with the human elements of isolation, depression, loneliness, death, mortality, sexuality and religion. Major influences include Duane Michals, Robert Mapplethorpe, Larry Sultan, Man Ray. Nature aside, I don't understand "conceptual"; in practice it often means "of no interest to most people until they have seen the accompanying 'artist's statement', which, if successful, will make viewers think that they ought somehow to find it of interest"; does it mean more than this here, and if so, what; either way, what's the source for this characterization? Does Kobeck say that Michals et al have influenced him, or has somebody else said this; either way, where's the source? -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - My work on this page is now complete. I have deleted the exhibitions where I could not find references (mostly South and Central America) which is probably the reason. Regarding " conceptual art;" I am not going to get into a discussion on what is and is not conceptual art. His work clearly is and he refers to himself as a conceptual artist on his blog in the past. He has also made mention of his influences on blog posts etc. Lets not nit pick this to death. I feel satisfied with the end result, although I do regret having to delete the Permanent Collection reference for the Center for Fine Art Photography simply because they refuse to publish it online. I must thank the person who pointed out the ref html tags etc. I was obviously doing it incorrectly and the formatting was wrong. I trust this will satisfy everyone .... added in this pair of edits by Okjaekim (contributions) on 29 May 2014
    - A reference normally comes after the assertion for which it's the reference. That error is easy to fix; but that aside, this article is dubious. (If your work on this page really is complete, I'm very disappointed.) I notice for example this pair of bare URLs in references: https://www.c4fap.org/exhibitions/home/ and http://raykophotocenter.com/2012/2013/2/2/voyeurism-intimacy-the-publicprivate-divide-in-photography . The former doesn't mention Kobeck (perhaps some other page in that website does). In the second, Kobeck is one of over thirty exhibitors. Ideally, there'd be critical commentary about his work, or awards for it, or something. Short of that, has he had any solo exhibitions (or shares in exhibitions by just two or three people)? Has he put out a photobook? Yes, feel very free to ignore my own jaded view of the "conceptual"; if his work is clearly conceptual (or indeed if it were instead clearly pictorialist or humanist or anything else), then where is the newspaper review (or whatever) that says this? -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The former url does mention Kobeck. It is a list of photographers in the "home" exhibition at the Center for Fine Art Photography. As you scroll through the photographs Kobeck's piece comes up. The second one is the Rayko Photo Gallery which is the gallery that hosted the Society for Photographic Education's event, and Kobeck is listed as one of the artist on the first page. Todd Hido (one of Kobeck's influences) juried that event and Kobeck was given an honorable mention. You clearly have made up your mind and refuse to change your stance, even though the article has been substantially cleaned up. Perhaps you simply do not care for the artists work (the sexual nature of some of the projects) ? But at this point, there is no valid reason why this article should be deleted. I have really said all I can here. .... added in this series of edits by Okjaekim (contributions) on 29 May 2014

Perhaps you are addressing me, Okjaekim. If so: I have no opinion of Kobeck's work. (I haven't seen it.) That I wasn't interested in the work of Kevin Ou or Henrik Purienne didn't hinder me from saying "Keep" to either article. The "Home" exhibition: I use the browser to search for the string "Kobeck", and it finds nothing. The Rayko one: OK, so Kobeck was one of 30+ people whose work was praised by Hido on that one occasion. Any solo exhibition by Kobeck? Any commentary by Hido on Kobeck? -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary yes I was addressing you in particular since you really seem to have issue with this artist. Are you a frustrated photographer or artist? Regarding the "Home: exhibition that you claim you couldn't find online; if you Google this HERE just scroll down to the 2nd and 3rd listing in that google search. Are you questioning the validity of The Center For Fine Art Photography? If you are, then perhaps you are not as knowledgable as you claim to be about fine art photography. Furthermore, if you go HERE and scroll to page 3 in the gallery the final 2 images are Kobeck's Yes you will have to actually click onto the image to see the artists name. It was one of those images that was added to the permanent collection ( I believe it was the one of the black man) The Center for Fine Art Photography is highly credible and trustworthy in and outside of academia. Kobeck's work was also exhibited (twice) at the Griffin Museum of Photography in Winchester MA. Regarding your remark about Todd Hido; yes he nominated Kobeck's work in the Society for Photographic Educations show as noteworthy by giving it his "Honorable Mention" nomination. This means he felt it stood out amoung the other 30 pieces. That show was also curated by Hido. I believe that speaks for itself. Perhaps you should email Hido and ask him about it? Okay, I know I have said this before, but now I am officially down with this ridiculous discussion as I have to be in Tokyo tomorrow for an event. .... added in this pair of edits by Okjaekim (contributions) on 29 May 2014

Oh yes, my questions about Kobeck must surely be symptomatic of psychological problems. Those aside, welcome to Tokyo! Highly recommended right now: the Kikai show at Canon, and (despite the inconvenience of location) the Kuwabara show at Setagaya Art Museum. -- Hoary (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of his achievements so far centre around exhibitions, which is not an achievement that demonstrates enough notability for Wikipedia. There is not one mention of him by any reliable source other than the places where his work has been exhibited or sold, no reliable disinterested sources talking *about* him. The only printed publication including him, that by APW Gallery, is one that would not normally merit inclusion in Wikipedia, as Kobeck's inclusion is so watered down by the fact the publication is a collection of work by 95 different contributors, only sold at the gallery and on their website, of which there is almost no mention on the web. The referenced article only for this publication claims it will be made, not that it was actually made, too. Is this group of contributors drawn from the same 106 people who were featured, as was Kobeck, in APW Gallery's 'Small Works BIG Idea' exhibition? It looks like a vanity publication, basically only mentioned on the web by the gallery themselves, and the included artists adding it to their CV. -Lopifalko (talk)

Comment. I have now updated the page to show proper evidence of the permanent collections, namely The Center for Fine Art Photography and Benedictine University. Please see the updates. Those are two reliable and verifiable sources, and meet the criteria for artists inclusion in the Wikipedia. .... added in this pair of edits by Okjaekim on 1 June 2014

Keep. The current version of the article does meet the guideline for inclusion. Namely, the artist is included in a major university’s permanent collection (Benedictine University) as well as the permanent collection of the Center For Fine Art Photography in Boulder, Colorado. The artist has also exhibited twice at the Griffin Museum of Photography, which is well-regarded. The Society for Photographic Education’s member show with honorable mention by Todd Hido is also nothing to take lightly. Kobeck's work displays human isolation in a way no other artist has done before, as even a cursory glance at his body of work will prove. I see no valid reason why this article should be deleted (now that the sources and references have been cleaned up from the prior version. I vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishey (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — Rishey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment A WP:Single-purpose account to vote on an obscure AfD is at best suspect, Rishey. heather walls (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Heather this is my first post here on Wikipedia so I don't know the lingo.Regardless, it is notable that you have no disagreement to my 'Keep" comment, but rather only disagree with my authenticity as a unique human being. --Rishey Rishey (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I still don't believe that this article proves notability, (being in a collection because one donated their own work should only be an added case, not the main argument,) at the same time as I am curious of your arrival to comment here. heather walls (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Heather, I have been a fan of Kobeck's work for a number of years and recently he tweeted a link to this entry. A few days later I noticed that it was flagged for deletion (my terminology may be wrong here). However, along the same lines, I am very curious as to why you were suddenly interested in deleting Kobeck's article only days after he tweeted a link to it. Your undermining the credibility of the detractors to your opinion make me seriously question your motives. Rishey (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Rishey[reply]

Hi Rishey, sorry I didn't notice your comment before. Actually I probably reviewed this page back when it was first created. After some new edits brought this article to the attention of my watch list again, I though I would see how it was doing. It did not appear to have grown to establish notability so I started the RfD to either stir up attention for improvements, or let the article go if there was nothing substantial to make supporting references. I am not trying to undermine anyone (who also happens to be a unique participant), just review the quality of this article. heather walls (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What an interesting discussion thats going on here! I had to jump back in. Heather Walls; let me educate you regarding the way Permanent Collections work, as I am in academia myself. I know you work in social media and marketing so perhaps you aren't aware of the process. For an artist to be included in the Permanent Collection of a museum, university or public institution, that artist is asked to donate the work that is sought to be included. Most often, the work that is requested to be donated was in a recent exhibition at said institution (which is exactly the case with eh "home" show at the Center for Fine Art Photography. In return, the artist will receive a letter of written confirmation (as is the case here in the links). The purpose of the letter is for a tax deduction. Of course the artist doesn't approach a museum or university and simply donate the work. Permanent collections are complied by curators and boards, never solicited by artist. If that were the case, every struggling artist would be donating work. I hope this clears up the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okjaekim, I suspect that this won't be the last time you'll feel compelled to "jump back in". On any future occasion, please finish your contribution with four consecutive jabs at the twiddle ("tilde") key ("~~~~"). This adds your name and the time. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely better than jabs at your fellow editors. Assumption and condescension are rarely appreciated. heather walls (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, thanks again for the tip. Im not of the computer generation and this whole internet thing is really new to me. Heather, I meant no disrespect to you. I was simply pointing out the process of Permanent Collections. Unless the artist is in the league of a Warhol, its always donated (at the request of the institution). I have certainly learned a lot about Wikki over the last few days. In the end, I do hope Kobeck's page remains, he is well known and respected among contemporary fine art photography. I feel guilty about this; because I fear it was my poor editing and use of proper citations that brought this on in the first place. cheers Okjaekim (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the same reasons as have already been mentioned, this article does not meet notability guidelines. I'm not sure that even being in the permanent collections of Benedictine University and the Center For Fine Art Photography in Boulder, Colorado, would suffice. The guidelines state "[the subject] is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.Paisarepa (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" The guidelines state "[the subject] is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" In my understanding, several means more then one. Let me just point out something critical here: The original article, as flagged by Heather Wells, is substantially different then this article as it is today! Namely. hardly any of the sources had proper citations (my fault admittedly). Both Benedictine University as well as The Center for Fine Art Photography did not have proper citations. So when Paisarepa says "For the same reasons as have already been mentioned, this article does not meet notability guidelines" He is referring to reasons that were mentioned in comments above, prior to the major revisions that were added. The article in its current state is substantially improved over its former version which was flagged for deletion and discussed above.Okjaekim (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for you to say what Paisarepa has done in coming to their decision. As Wikipedia editors we should assume good faith and assume that Paisarepa has based their decision on reading the article as it stands. My assumption is that they did that, and still found it lacking notability, for the same reason that other commentators have found, because the achievements do not amount to notability in the eyes of Wikipedia, whether referenced or not. -Lopifalko (talk)

Comment No to the contrary, I am simply quoting Wikki's guidelines. regarding the an artist being included in several permanent collections as that is what was mentioned in the above comment. Several means "more then one" and I was pointing this out. Paisarepa quoted the guidelines and then went on to say Kobeck being in those two collections don't meet the guidelines of "several" which seemed like a contradiction. This entire discussion is becoming a witch hunt and that is what saddens me. In the end, its not the artist who will be damaged, but its the credibility of the Wikipedia. Okjaekim (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Okjaekim. First off, I judged the page based off of the information on it when I accessed it, shortly before I posted my opinion here. When I said that I agree for the same reasons posted above, I should have been more specific. It is my opinion that the page should be deleted because the artist does not meet WP:ARTIST notability guidelines, and I was unable to find anything additional that would suggest that he does meet the guidelines. Second, it is my understanding that the word "several" means "more than two, or three, but not very many" (see:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/several). I realize that words can have many different meanings or broad meanings, and that the meaning can vary over time and over geographical distances, so I apologize for any misunderstanding. However, I stand by my opinion that the page should be deleted, per WP:ARTIST and WP:TOOSOON. I think it is possible that this artist will be notable enough for a page in the future, but not yet. Paisarepa (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The "improvements" to the article since Afd listing highlight the lack of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per wikipedia guidelines; the photographer is included in the permanent collections of two credible institutions, one of them being a university. Both institutions have wikipedia pages. To dismiss this as insignificant to say same for both institutions (Center for Fine Art Photography and Benedictine University). I also see two photographs in the auction database at Susanins in chicago (a major fine art auction house). In the references there are also two exhibitions at the Griffin Museum in Boston. TxFineArt (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC) TxFineArt (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)— TxFineArt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep The achievements of the artist are substantial enough to merit the current page. I'm not going to repeat the obvious as it was all covered above. There are plenty of articles on Wiki that should be deleted, this is not one of them. And I do agree with the poster above, this is starting to look like a witch hunt! Docman67 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — Docman67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Above, I was asked: Perhaps you simply do not care for the artists work (the sexual nature of some of the projects) ? I later looked at Kobeck's website. I don't claim to have looked closely at everything there, but my impression is that the reference here can only be to the series "Destitute" (which I should point out is "NSFW"). Could it be that this is in a sense "outsider art" whose subject matter makes it unpalatable not only to my staid self but also to arbiters of taste and whose notability therefore should not be judged by the usual criteria? Well, the subject matter strikes me as resembling that of Scot Sothern's Lowlife and Tony Fouhse's User. Both of the latter series (particularly Sothern's) have been recognized and discussed. I've no reason to think that the subject matter is a hurdle -- and anyway, this is only a minority of Kobeck's work (as represented on his website). -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hoary you said: "I've no reason to think that the subject matter is a hurdle -- and anyway, this is only a minority of Kobeck's work (as represented on his website" however this is not true. I was looking at his website a few minutes ago and the gallery titled "Push to Eject" seems to include photos of S&M, homosexual porn imagery, etc. His blog page which is linked on his website also seems to be a little "out there" for lack of a better word. He also has a large following on social media with plenty of rants about liberal politics, homosexuality, religion etc. I support free speech, even if I don't agree with whats being said. However, its not out of the realm that a outspoken and high profile (on social media) artist would offend someone. Okjaekim (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lopifalko. Biographies require at least a few reliable sources, and especially non-trivial secondary sources, to meet WP:BIO. The presence of so many SPAs suggests that some serious meatpuppetry is afoot.- Mr X 15:55, 11 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Buors[edit]

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

Never received more than a few hundred votes in any election and never held elected office. Fails WP:NPOL. No significant coverage, just one article on a conviction. WP:POLOUTCOMES applies here. Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see how he's notable; the stub fails WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:GNG generally. In any case, the subject requested the article's deletion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chris_Buors. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 2 June 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 June 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created at a different time in Wikipedia's evolution, when the fact of being the leader of a political party — regardless of the party's degree of success or failure in politics — was a sufficient notability claim in and of itself, and articles didn't actually have to be as strictly and carefully sourced as they do now. Consensus has evolved away from that somewhat, however — as things stand now, an article about a political party leader, especially if it's a WP:BLP, can now be deleted if its sourcing isn't really solid. Strictly speaking, the fact that the subject wants it deleted is irrelevant, as if a person passes our notability rules it's not Wikipedia policy to give them a right to say we can't write about them. What is determinative here, however, is that the sourcing is really poor — after the nominator cleaned up for bad and invalid and primary and dead sources, there was only one substantive reliable source left. Given that he was a party leader and candidate, his name may certainly be mentioned in the appropriate articles about the appropriate parties and elections, but we don't need a poorly sourced standalone BLP here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the subject of a BLP requests deletion in good faith, honoring the request is the right thing to do. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with the above, but only when the figure is of borderline notability, as it is here. No-one should have an automatic right to deletion of their article if it clearly meets WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that anyone has the right to deletion of their article; they clearly don't. I said that honoring such a request for deletion is the right thing to do. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:GNG. Thousands of people have stood for elections and received a few hundred votes, and thousands have been activists—there is no claim of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An extremely minor politician who has never won any office, anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 5 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LiveWatch[edit]

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

unremarkable company, references are mostly ciscumstancial Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 22:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid I have to agree. I'm not finding really any worthwhile coverage in the third party arena, other than it exists. I don't think the Inc 5000 listing qualifies for WP:GNG. Would listen to arguments the other way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and per Paul McDonald. Almost all the mentions are incidental, such as the quote from Brad Morehead in the Broadband Communities Magazine article. Even the Ledger-Enquirer about safety in Columbus, Ohio, in light of a facebook post, only mentions LiveWatch/SafeMart once at the end of the article as the "putatively unreliable" source of the Internet rumor. no significant coverage, and being #4325 in Inc.'s listing is no great shakes. --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient evidence of notability. The Columbus material is insubstantial. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 6 June 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 - Trevj manages to present the strongest case with actual references that clearly show there has been some coverage. That makes it appear that the problem isn't notability, but one of editing. Had those been already included in the article, we likely wouldn't be here now, so it seems obvious that a keep is due. Perhaps someone will be graceful enough to add those. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samarqand Restaurant[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable as a restaurant, not sourced, a quick search didn't show any reviews beyond yelp/tripadvisor Zeus^u|c 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No RS beyond reviews. PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Daily Mail article describes this restaurant as "trendy" and "a favourite of Russian oligarchs": [1] via Highbeam, subscription reqd. Not in itself evidence of encyclopaedic notability, but indicative of some attention. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve. Between AllyD's link (I don't have HighBeam access, so I can't look at it for myself) and this and this provide in-depth coverage, but their reliability is slightly sketchy (especially the second one). --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 22:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:SIGCOV.[2][3][4][5][6] -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A NN ethnic restaurant. If one substituted "Indian" there would be no doubt it was NN. There are probably relatively few of this ethnicity, but that does not make this BAD article worth keeping or improving. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Evan Rosen. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bounty Effect[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines at WP:BK, only some reviews. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 21:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reviews are usable as far as showing notability goes, per WP:NBOOK. I'm leaning towards a weak keep overall. There isn't a lot out there and part of me thinks that it'd be better to have a page for the series as a whole as opposed to individual articles, but there is coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author Evan Rosen. Not enough information for a stand-alone article on this book. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. To be honest, there is currently no reliable sources in the article. (The Washington Times is not reliable.) Bearian (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lithia water. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bear-lithia[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Fails WP:GNG. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lithia water. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. I'm not seeing the notability of this product. Bali88 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT. Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Second Quorum of the Seventy. Jinian (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory A. Schwitzer[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin S. Hamilton, GNG trumps being a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Therefore, non-LDS related sources are needed for this article to be kept. As with Hamilton, the sources are not there. Merge attempt was blocked by article's creator. p b p 21:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I blocked your attempt to merge the article in question, but as I explained in the edit summary field, the fact that one article was deleted based on a specific discussion related to that article does not automatically mean that this article can or should be deleted. I understand (and even accept) your point about GNG. A cursory search of Schwitzer's name on Google yields 36,100 results. One of them was an analysis of his talk about how LDS members do not use the symbol of the cross. I found three or more articles highlighting his involvement in stake reorganizations since becoming a general authority. He has served in an area presidency, which means he was one of the highest ranking leaders in that area. Another couple of articles say he is involved with missionary health issues, particularly in assisting mission presidents to determine if and when a missionary should be sent home for health reasons. According to his Church biography, he currently serves as one of four assistant executive directors of the Church's Temple Department. As such, he assisted in the groundbreaking for the Indianapolis Indiana Temple (one among many) and participated in the dedication of the Tegucigalpa Honduras Temple. Again, this information was found within just the first four pages of a Google search. These events make him prominent. As with the previous discussion, this will likely be my only comment. But I will be monitoring this discussion for whatever outcome occurs. At the outset, I would encourage the dialogue to be respectful, even if and when disagreements on this issue arise. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GOOGLESEARCH. The number of Google hits something gets is not reason for keeping something, particularly if the first page of results doesn't have anything approximating a reliable source. The discussion I referenced discounts the argument that simply being prominent in the LDS Church justifies keeping; if he really was that prominent, he'd have received significant coverage in reliable sources. p b p 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per precedent and my own commentary in other related AFDs. We still require subjects to meet WP:GNG to be considered notable. Some internal standard of famousness or involvement is irrelevant. A key factor in assessing coverage is a consideration of independence. Church blogs, newsletters and websites are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing the notability of internal church functionaries. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Procedurally oppose. First off, this article is on a General Authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have enough articles on General Authority's, and enough discussion of the matter, that we should keep all the article. Secondly, on a proceduarl ground, I find what has been done with article by article nominations that avoid any centralizied notification is unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is not supported by policy. It is perfectly acceptable to nominate articles one at a time, heck, multi-deletion noms of more than about 8-9 are actively discouraged. Secondly, the policy isn't "all General Authorities are notable". The policy is GNG, which requires independent sources. All the sources of this article are from LDS publications, so GNG fails and this should be deleted. p b p 20:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hunted for non-church sources and found this and this but those two are merely mentions. I assume he is a major figure in the church of LDS, with a mention here. There may have been a mention in the Washington Post (but the server can not find the article). I hunted for about 8 SERP pages using two forms of the name (one without the middle initial) and basically did not find much. Still, overall, while the subject appears to be a fine human being, and I admire and respect doctors of all stripes, according to Wikipedia's rules, I am not sure the subject meets the general notability guideline unfortunately.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources showing notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was unable, via the usual searches, to find the requisite sources necessary to reach WP:BASIC. There are mentions of him, a sentence description here, a passing reference there, a listing in a republished press release (credited as such) in a third. I don't know of a precedent establishing notability for LDS officials at this level (pardon my ignorance if I've used the wrong word here). --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Second Quorum of the Seventy. There's not enough reliable material there for a full biography of a living person, but a redirect is a cheap way to still provide value to our readers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Second Quorum of the Seventy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terence M. Vinson[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin S. Hamilton, GNG trumps being a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Therefore, non-LDS related sources are needed for this article to be kept. As with Hamilton, the sources are not there. Merge attempt was blocked by article's creator. p b p 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I blocked your attempt to merge the article in question, but as I explained in the edit summary field, the fact that one article was deleted based on a specific discussion related to that article does not automatically mean that this article can or should be deleted. I understand (and even accept) your point about GNG. A cursory search of Vinson's name on Google yields 28,200 results. One of them I found was interesting, Written in 211, it discusses the possibility of having a Aussie apostle one day. And Vinson is mentioned as one of the possibilities for that. While this may only be interesting trivial information, it is a non-LDS source about him. The conference talk he gave last October was highlighted in Mormonopia, a prominent Church-focused blog. He is the first Australian native to be called to be a general authority. That makes him unique. He represented the Church in presenting to Australia's Prime Minister with his family history. That puts him on a higher profile level than some other members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy because it puts him in the limelight a bit. He will always be remembered for those things. And that's just with data I found on the first four pages. As with the previous discussion, this will likely be my only comment. But I will be monitoring this discussion for whatever outcome occurs. At the outset, I would encourage the dialogue to be respectful, even if and when disagreements on this issue arise. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GOOGLESEARCH. The number of Google hits something gets is not reason for keeping something, particularly if the first page of results doesn't have anything approximating a reliable source. The discussion I referenced discounts the argument that simply being prominent in the LDS Church justifies keeping; if he really was that prominent, he'd have received significant coverage in reliable sources. p b p 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per precedent and my own commentary in other related AFDs. We still require subjects to meet WP:GNG to be considered notable. Some internal standard of famousness or involvement is irrelevant. A key factor in assessing coverage is a consideration of independence. Church blogs, newsletters and websites are not independent sources for the purposes of establishing the notability of internal church functionaries. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I don't even see a reason for a redirect here. A redirect of this kind suggests that the topic is going to be covered in a section of the target article, which I do not think is the case here (although Stalwart111 doesn't say here to which article the redirect should point). My search for sources on this individual produced nothing under Google Books, and the first several pages of my other Internet searches indicated that while he is no doubt a person of some note within the Mormon church, he does not appear to have any wider notability at this point. The references provided in the article as it stands are not from reliable independent secondary sources with editorial oversight-- they are church-news web pages and LDS links, things that could be used to support or augment an otherwise-established claim to notability but which cannot do this on their own. Given that he does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines and that he is not, as far as I know, personally mentioned and at least briefly discussed in a section of the target article (?), a redirect seems unnecessary (if that second "given" is not the case, then a redirect would seem appropriate). KDS4444^Talk 10:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, of course you need to know what those "other related AFDs" are. I mean redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the related AFDs includes this one. He is listed there (along with his colleagues) so I guess it's theoretically possible for someone to search for his name in that context. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now, that's more like it! Thank you, 30 Stalwart knights and three. Yes, a Redirect seems perfectly appropriate to me now. KDS4444^Talk 15:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Proceduarally Oppose First off, I oppose this person by person nomination process. Many of us feel that it is reasonable to decide that ALL General Authorities are notable. Such has clearly been decided about the top leaders of other churches, and there is no reason that this could not be decided of general authrotieis. That is a debate that should be carried on in a very public place, or by nominating all General Authority articles that do not seem to meet other requirements. To do this on a case by case basis leaves too much up to chance. I also very strongly object to the tone of the nomination, and still think it as well as similar ones were written with clear and present antagonism towards all LDS related sources. The interpretation of "independent sources" is far too broad in this case. The implication of what these people do and do not control does not hold up to actual scrutiny. The sources are not controled by the subject in any meaningful way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is not supported by policy. It is perfectly acceptable to nominate articles one at a time, heck, multi-deletion noms of more than about 8-9 are actively discouraged. Secondly, the policy isn't "all General Authorities are notable". The policy is GNG, which requires independent sources. All the sources of this article are from LDS publications, so GNG fails and this should be deleted. p b p 21:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent sources showing notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:11, 10 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Neri[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. Using Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) as a guide, this person does not have any major awards, does not hold any high level positions, and does not appear to have made a "significant impact" on the academic field. Publications do not appear to be highly cited ([7], can't find in WoK). No first author papers. Has one patent, but per item #7 here, that is not enough to establish notability. Moreover, page was created by someone who likely has a WP:COI in response to edits on Archbishop MacDonald High School (see history). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the field of data security for Personal Health Information, the research and recommendations made by this particular author and researcher have helped to shape policy both in the Province of Ontario and Canada. Closer inspection of the published articles clearly supports this. Dataprivacy (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. The sources provided are mostly coverage of various subjects (in the form of acadmic reports) by the subject, not of the subject. Some of the sources don't mention the subject at all. The problem is that the subject has contributed to knowledge in a particular area but there is no 3rd-party to verify how significant that contribution has been. The significance of his contribution requires our own interpretation. We know Leonardo Da Vinci mad a significant contribution to art because many scholars after him have talked about his contribution to art. I can't find anything to verify the claim that the subject has, "helped to shape policy both in the Province of Ontario and Canada". Even if that were so, is that really a significant enough contribution (plenty of academics contribute to the development of policy in their region/country) for the subject to be considered notable? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of independent sources. --Rob (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The level of citation for his research (in a high-citation field) is not enough to pass WP:PROF#C1, and no other claim of significance is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rob and David. Steam5 (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Róchez[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is the Honduran top flight's top scorer and that he has played for youth national teams. The latter is explicitly excluded as a source of notability by WP:NSPORT, and the former does not appear to have generated significant coverage meaning it does not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the coverage is a little hard to find in some instances and most of it isn't in English but the associated images make it clear many of the articles are focused on the subject:

Now I'm sure a couple of those aren't reliable sources but there does seem to be a lot written about the kid. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - sources above appear to satisfy WP:GNG as non-routine coverage. Fenix down (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails WP:NFOOTBALL but meets WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why try to delete the article for one of the top players in Honduran club football, who very clearly meets WP:GNG with the results of the simplest of Google searches? Nfitz (talk) 14:54, 8 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Khoshaba[edit]

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

Not enough legit sources, and not enough links to extend the article. Jerm729 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple searches are turning up just brief mention of the subject opening a Homework Centre during his term as town mayor. I don't see that or the private member's statement referenced in the article as sufficient for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on a minor local politician. He does not meet notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty standard local mayor article, no evidence of wider notability. Frickeg (talk) 01:28, 8 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (Film)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable film. Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 19:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak delete per nomination, and based on this comment made by the article's author at his user talk page in which he admits to writing the article to "generate talk" about the film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the creator's express intentions and characterization of the film's circumstances. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC) No longer concerned given the more recent activity and findings. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per nomination. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of WP:SOAP from subsequent reply. I don't see this ending well if potential issues were to be unaddressed. --Marianian^(talk) 01:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per non-COI edits made to improve the article past what it looked like when first nominated. Yes, is was WP:UGLY when nominated, but that is no longerthe case. Time to step back a second. COI is always a concern, but not strictly forbidden, as even User:Jimmy Wales has occasionally edited the Jimmy Wales article about himself. Guideline shares the reasons for why editors need be held separate from those topics upon which they contribute. Yes, User:Stuart Bannerman made eight edits to that page. But now that he has been made aware of concerns, he has ceased. Others with no COI have subsequently made far more edits there than did Stuart. So I suggest we step back from the angst surrounding this topic's origination, and look at the improvements made since writing, looking at the non-Bannerman edits which occurred after nomination, try to ignore and comments about the editor himself, and decide if the film being created, released and having non-trivial coverage meets the inclusion criteria set by WP:NF. As long as Bannerman no longer edits it, the decision should be just that simple. User:Tokyogirl79 deserves our thanks for turning a sow's ear into something that serves the project. Kudos girl... kudos. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if it'd be enough to keep or not. I second the keep opinion- I think that there's just enough here to squeak by. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am convinced enough that this is just notable enough to be kept, fulfilling GNG and marginally NFILM. A simple cursory search ("Rose movie") for sources would not have been enough, given the film's simple name and the rehaul of the article is commendable. More can be done, however, such as a citation to complement the release date mentioned in the infobox. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed my !vote to weak delete. Although I applaud MichaelQSchmidt's efforts in improving this article (where do you find your sources??) I still think the coverage is a bit weak. It all appears to be local to the Northampton area where the film was shot, and it is scattered between coverage of the original 2008 short film and the new 2012 feature. The short, having been granted a Cannes screening, might just be notable if there is evidence of anyone noticing it at that screening. The feature still seems a bit light on coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ WikiDan61: Just takes digging and persistence, and expanding searches to include possibilities and User:Tokyogirl79 deserves even more credit. There was a BBC radio interview wherein the short was spoken of in detail and which discussed plans for the eventual feature to be based on the short, but I cannot find it archived. Perhaps a new article can be written on the short with the information on the resulting award-winning and distributed feature film included in addition section. Of course, having won awards and distribution, the feature might be considered the more notable of the two. Certainly the short did not have the coverage of the feature. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It has gotten one award as it stateson WP:NFILM Thats enough to reach Notability. Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 02:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Goblin (album). j⚛e decker ^talk 06:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwitches[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. All refs are to social networks. STATic message me! 19:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt due lack of proper sourcing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable. All the references are from Youtube and Tumblr. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goblin (album), the song's parent album, as a plausible search term. The song was performed on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and is often mentioned (trivially) within reviews of the album (e.g., [8][9][10][11][12][13]), but I'm not seeing sufficient coverage to warrant a standalone article. Gongshow talk 08:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VCR/Wheels[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. STATic message me! 19:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt due to lack of reliable third-party coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no obvious reason why this title needs to be salted; it's never been deleted before. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:00, 3 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Brown (actor)[edit]

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

Setting aside the (not reliable) IMDB reference, there is nothing here to convicingly demonstrate notability or significance. He seems to be just another actor who has had some success in small roles, but very little notice or coverage other than passing mentions in reviews of Refh's films, or a few local paper pieces following the sad death of his daughter. I realise that there may be some difficulty in finding sources that aren't about the former UK Prime Minister, but this actor doesn't seem very notable yet. Mabalu (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No luck for me finding GNG-worthy sources, the nominator is right to notice the name conflation issue. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actor has dubious notability. Looking through his filmography, he has not played any substantive roles or had significant press coverage. There is also the name conflation issue. Cowlibob (talk) 10:11, 7 June 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. After three weeks and no real consensus, I think it's fair to say that one will not be reached in this discussion, as there is a fundamental disagreement over whether she meets WP:GNG, as she apparently (according to most discussion participants) meet WP:POLITICIAN. Go Phightins! 12:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Feeney[edit]

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

Feeney is a newly elected member of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, As a local councillor she fails WP:Politician. The article creator seemed to think she was elected as as TD (Irish member of parliament), she was not. Her only other tenuous claim to fame is that she was the first female leader of the youth wing of Ireland's third largest political party. Snappy (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, Kate Feeney was "at the centre of an awkward row which raised questions about Fianna Fáil's leadership". She has also been involved in "an internal fight" in her party, bringing headlines of "civil war". She has also been advised to "steer well clear" of her own party colleague, a former minister.

The nominator has also not taken into consideration the policy she uses in her argument. If she did she might find she was contradicting herself. Under this guideline, there is a place reserved on Wikipedia for 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage'. 'A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.'

As well as this, 'elected local official[s] can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".'

These issues should be taken into consideration when deciding the outcome of this discussion. There is also no evidence of the nominator's statement that the creator "seemed to think she was elected as as TD"

Keep, as declared above. --86.45.164.21 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing about the Mary Hanafin spat was notable, just internal part politics in a local electoral area of a county council and has generated some but not significant coverage. The creator of the article mentioned several times she had been elected as a TD for Dun Laoighaire Dail constituency and added TD categories to the article, simply look at earlier versions of the article to confirm this. Snappy (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

County councillors do not generally pass WP:POLITICIAN, and internal disagreements inside a political party don't necessarily confer notability on participants who weren't already notable enough for articles — if the fight had actually somehow toppled Fianna Fáil's leadership, there'd be a tidal wave of coverage of the leadership crisis, and it would thus be possible to write a much longer and more extensively sourced article about Kate Feeney than this. But if the best you can say is that it briefly threatened to topple the party leadership, then how do you demonstrably prove that a meaningful threat actually existed, and wasn't just an overblown media tempest about a "threat" that never really amounted to anything? Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - significant press coverage warrants retention --Zymurgy (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesnt pass guideline for notability for a politican, @Zymurgy significant press coverage over a single issue doesnt confer notability, especailly one was repeated at election time. Murry1975 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can understand arguments above, both pro and con. I revamped the article, adding more references, removing unsourced material. My sense is Feeney is a prominent Irish politician. Her battle with Hanafin got widespread coverage so that the words Hanafin and Feeney are almost synonymous with "rival" or "Waterloo". Multiple independent reliable references suggest Feeney meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the moment, I think that Feeney is largely a case of WP:ONEEVENT; she had a bit of a spat with a fellow local politician but they have to sit next to each other awkwardly in council because their surnames are alphabetically close. There was a burst of coverage in reliable sources on the whole affair, but once her fifteen minutes were over it abated to nothing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Originals – Alanis Morissette[edit]

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

Non-notable album. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found for this release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 17:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hollywood Game Night episodes[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT article showing by-episode television ratings and contestants appearing on each episode. Article does not contain information that meets guidelines in WP:EPISODE (specifically, "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.") Contestant prizes and episode results are all unsourced.

This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that is appropriate to be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet WP:GNG.

Any scheduling information is already detailed in Hollywood Game Night#Episodes. AldezD (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the nom notes, in contrast with dramatic TV series we don't normally include episode by episode details for game shows (based on past experience from AFD, not from the quoted language from WP:EPISODE above, which doesn't provide any relevant guidance here that I see), and I don't see a reason for questioning that practice here. It's possible someone may present an argument as to why this show, which features celebrities every episode, may merit different treatment, or that there may be secondary source attention for individual episodes (anything is possible). But delete unless that is demonstrated. postdlf (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, and reasons addressed in other similar AFDs, such as:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal Special shows
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Figure It Out episodes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BrainSurge episodes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes
Individual episode results are not notable enough for their own article and, in my opinion, would indeed fall under WP:LISTCRUFT. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a specific program format called a panel show, where the participants are celebrities. Panel shows have episode pages identifying the panelists. This can ultimately lead to identifying who a show's regular panelists are, whether certain team captains or panelists have a tendency to win or do poorly, which celebrities appear frequently on panel shows, etc. Panel show fans frequently ask questions like, "what was that episode where celebrity A told celebrity B this," and Wikipedia episode lists are the key to finding the answer. This is different from a game show where no one really cares what the contestants are named, or a fictional show without plot summaries where the actors are essentially the same every episode. Here are examples of panel show episode pages:

List of QI episodes (A featured list, one of "what we believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia.")
List of Mock the Week episodes
List of Have I Got News for You episodes
List of 8 Out of 10 Cats episodes
List of Would I Lie to You? episodes
List of Never Mind the Buzzcocks episodes
List of A League of Their Own episodes
List of @midnight episodes

Can you spot a significant difference between the QI page and the Hollywood Game Night page that accounts for the extreme contrast of one being a featured list and the other being eligible for deletion? Pdxuser (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid Keep argument. Hollywood Game Night is not a panel game, and this article is nothing more than an unsourced cruft directory list of guests and contestant winnings (with the exception of television ratings for each episode, which are sourced—the bulk of the article remains unverified). What fans of the show frequently ask does not negate guidelines in WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. The episodes themselves are not notable, and contain no out-of-universe context. The featured status of the List of QI episodes article (and the related child articles for each season) has no bearing on this article's content, notability or ability to meet WP guidelines, and there is a clear difference in content between those articles and this article nominated for deletion. Regarding your WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, the same holds true for the other articles you linked. AldezD (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is HGN not a panel game? It's celebrities playing parlor games. If the host asked them to identify someone's occupation, it would suddenly be What's My Line. Is it because the panelists are seated on couches rather than seated behind desks? Because the earliest TV panel shows were on couches: They were charades shows. ::WP:COPYVIO link removed:: with Dick Van Dyke and Mary Tyler Moore. There's a significant difference between "other stuff exists" and "this is an example of the best of Wikipedia, after a consensus decision, and is the demonstrated consistent practice for this type of article." Can you explain why the list of QI episodes is the "best of Wikipedia," but this virtually identical list shouldn't exist? Pdxuser (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of AldezD's response to you is irrelevant (e.g., "out-of-universe" has no meaning outside of dramatized fiction, and regardless episode numbers, air dates, cast lists, and audience ratings would all qualify as "out-of-universe" information even if we were dealing with a list of that kind), and comparisons can be useful particularly if we're saying "we never keep game show episode lists" and you point to one that has passed a significant community review. I agree with you this seems to be a panel game. But I don't know why that necessary matters. I'm not aware of any previous discussions regarding using that alone for a basis for distinguishing between encyclopedic and nonencyclopedic lists of game show episodes, nor do I know if that's really the best way to separate the lists you point to (assuming the community would think they are valid) from ones we regularly delete. Are there other deletion discussions you can point to in which such lists were kept, on the basis that they are for a panel game, or some other basis? postdlf (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-universe context would be individual episodes being covered in a WP:V third-party, reliable source. This article is unreferenced WP:LISTCRUFT. The program's status as/as not a panel game has no bearing on an episode list meeting WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. List of QI episodes has been part of featured content on WP—but as WP:OTHERSTUFF states, that does not mean List of Hollywood Game Night episodes meets WP:GNG/WP:EPISODE. AldezD (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HGN actually has 29 references. They're mostly verification for the ratings figures, but that's also true of community-approved featured lists like those for 24, Arrested Development, Grey's Anatomy, Smallville and SpongeBob SquarePants, among others. Would adding links to TV Guide verifying which celebrities appeared be necessary? Pdxuser (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if such discussions have occurred. The argument and distinction I would make is that the participants in a game show are not noteworthy. The participants in a panel show are. And while it's the plot that may be most notable about an episode of a fictional show where the main cast doesn't change, it is the changing cast — the celebrity panel — that is most notable about an episode of a panel show. For example, TV Guide's summaries of Hollywood Game Night say which celebrities are on the show, while the summaries for another NBC show, Parks and Recreation, are about the plot. The way panel shows are treated by TV Guide is more like the way talk shows are treated than the way game shows are treated. And it turns out that Wikipedia, too, treats panel shows and talk shows similarly. Wikipedia does include lists for talk show episodes, such as with The Tonight Show with Johnny, Jay and Jimmy, and Late Night with Conan, Jimmy and Seth. Perhaps this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but neither WP:OTHERSTUFF nor WP:LISTCRUFT are policies or guidelines, and it does appear now that episode lists are consistently kept for both panel shows and talk shows where the primary interest is in which celebrities appeared on the show. Pdxuser (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do agree that this is listcruft, and that cataloguing everyone that appears on every episode is excessive detail. Happy for it to be temporarily userified so that the data can be moved to a more appropriate location, such as tviv.org. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:58, 14 June 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, with no objection to create a redirect to Centre Place. I'm not seeing 'keep' arguments grounded in policy here, and the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) does not appear to cover defunct shopping structures. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Plaza (Hamilton, New Zealand)[edit]

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

NN defunct mall. Was PRODed; prod was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing remotely notable NealeFamily (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Creator, User:Ktr101, is an experienced Wikipedian. I'd like to read his response before voting (Keving, ping me when you reply here). All readers, Kevin included, may want to check out and vote on the new, proposed, and highly related Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) guideline. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Piotrus, I created the page in 2011 when I split Centre Place/Downtown Plaza and created this page. I really don't care if it is deleted or not, but I would have rather had a community discussion. I also think there might be more information in New Zealand, as it lasted eighteen years and I am sure not all of the sources relevant to it are on the internet (something which is common before the mass-use of the internet by news sources occurred). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have many malls that were operating through 2013, as this mall was, that attract internet media coverage -- if they are notable. Even where the media is in languages other than English -- unlike here. "It lasted 18 years" does not confer notability on it. And we can't keep on the basis of "maybe there is coverage, but I can't see it, that is substantial non-local notable coverage." Otherwise, that would be an argument in most AfD discussions. IMHO. Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since wp:notability is not conferred, arguing that "x does not confer notability" is a truism. Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. malls are not inherently notable. and this one makes no demonstration of GNG being met. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No usable references in the article, and a search failed to find any reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Centre Place and include any relevant history there. It a logical place to combine for each of reader use.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When DGG undid Epeefleche's prod, diff, he said, "merge available--its at least a good redirect". Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect I doubt that this topic is wp:notable, but there is no theoretical case for deletion given the proof that the article is a split. The article is a split from Centre Place, and the place to discuss wp:notability in this case is not at AfD, but rather the talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is not notable (and you say you doubt this one is notable), then the subject of the article does not meet our notability criteria. And a keep !vote is not appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 10 June 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 salted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartPixel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous version of this article was deleted at AfD last year. I don't see any sourcing improvements that would indicate notability. Seems to be non notable software. Safiel (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Fails notability test, previously deleted in an AfD and, per talk page, has COI issues. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, recreated after recent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and WP:CORPDEPTH. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, created by a now-blocked user as likely promotional. The dottech.org review is not a reliable source, leaving only the softwarereviewboffin.com review, which on its own is not sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: As per Nov 2013 AfD opinion and outcome, there is no evidence that this product is notable. AllyD (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Did not find any other suitable sources with which to establish notability. Two independent sources are cited in the article; neither are what I'd consider reliable sources: dottech.org seems more like a blog with a very small number of contributors, and Software Review Boffin publishes anonymous reviews, apparently soliciting reviews from the software publishers ("Is your Product featured on Boffin? Reviews are now being accepted (subject to Boffin's scrutiny)." Agyle (talk) 20:01, 4 June 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. User:MichaelQSchmidt edits have swayed the consensus. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adina's Deck[edit]

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

trivial awards, minor reviews DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': I've greatly cleaned up the article in general, but I'm finding some trouble finding sources. Most of what I'm finding are primary sources such as things written directly by the film crew/cast or brief mentions in relation to the overall subject of cyberbullying. The trivial mentions are usually where Heimowitz was brought in to speak as a specialist about cyberbullying but neither she nor the films were the direct focus of the article. I'll keep looking, but so far there isn't really a lot of coverage out there and while this does seem to be used in some schools, it's not entirely wide-spread. In other words, most of the mention of use in schools tends to come from articles where the content is taken primarily via press releases. I'd like to see more coverage in school sources (websites, planners, etc) before I could say it's used in classrooms and would merit a possible keep that way. I do agree that the awards are minor and aren't really the type that could really give any true notability per Wikipedia's purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only real evidence I see of it being used is this book mention but again, we'd need a bit more than that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the author can provide some more sources, I'm leaning toward delete. I'm just not seeing enough coverage for an article. Bali88 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep. This is not a mainstream production marketed and supported by some big studio, but is rather a teaching aid to assist middle-schoolers address cyber bullying. Lengthy reviews are not a realistic expectation... just as they would not be for a textobook. That it has received attention for its anti-cyber-bullying message, and has resulted in the creation of actual anti-bullying software from Stanford University, I think we do a real service for our readers by speaking about it within these pages. For the readers... not for the editors. WP:IAR anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about this topic, but isn't Wikipedia sort of against creating pages to support an agenda? If the software has received national attention, but isn't getting tons of press, a better solution may be to have a redirect to cyber bullying and have a mention on that page Bali88 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do have articles on various books and other media that themselves have "agendas", without those articles indicating any Wikipedia support of those agendas. In matters of education and public safety, Wikipedia does not itself have any agenda beyond the neutral sharing of sourcable information. However, I would not be opposed to a redirect and mention. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstood when you said "I think we do a real service for our readers". I thought you meant that the article could help stop cyber-bullying or something. Bali88 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant exactly what I wrote. Just as an article on cardiopulmonary resuscitation serves our reader's understanding of that topic and educates on its background, methods, use, and practices without being deleted under WP:NOTHOWTO, I think covering anti-cyber-bullying in some manner is a real service for our readers. I would not be opposed to a redirect and mention you suggested. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic and most educational. — Cirt (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable, third party sources beyond a few awards. Written like an advertisement, or WP:NOBLE.Jh1234l (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has the genre awards one might hope to expect for an informational series. It's not a mainstream film and will never win an Oscar. It's an educational. Take a look at the various Google Scholar results. The thing IS being cited positively by peers, and tone is something that can be addressed through regular editing, not deletion. Addressing the well-covered issues of cyber-bullying is not quite comparable to promoting a political cause. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the existing references indicate notability and it has also won a notable award. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 22:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The series itself is not particularly well known except within educational circles, but based on what the article has currently reference wise and content wise, plus its good reception as an educational resource would warrant it being kept Nz101^Userpage_Talkpage 09:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep complete nonsense that this notable article has not been already Kept by now. obvious notability event and sources to match.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Christina Aguilera. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bionic Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable tour. Was announced, but was cancelled shortly after. There are rare cases when cancelled tours are notable (see Fame Kills: Starring Kanye West and Lady Gaga and This Is It (concerts), but this is not one of those cases. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Christina Aguilera. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Christina Aguilera due to lack of significant third-party coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: @XXSNUGGUMSXX: The relevant information is already included in Christina Aguilera, Bionic (Christina Aguilera album), and List of Christina Aguilera concert tours. I tried to redirect the article myself, but was reverted, so I think the best option would be to delete and salt from being created again. Bionic Tour also already redirects to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album), and was previously merged. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you were reverted by a very unreliable editor who is now blocked lol Redirect or salt, doesn't matter, either way, the article shouldn't exist. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if not salt, this should be fully protected as a redirect. I'll let the closing admin decide. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). I worked so hard to replace disambig links. lol. anyways, this shouldn't exist.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Since I was unlocked after the problems we had with this article. Well, first, I apologize, I was not aware of what was happening, did not know that user could actually delete the page, I thought for a moment that was a possible vandalism or something ... the fact is that I finally understood what happened, so I have nothing more to say except one thing:

Although the tour was canceled, that does not mean it is irrelevant, because it was an important step in the career of Christina by the "flop" you got time, and although I do not like is the reality, and I think having this site is very well but never came to fruition. Anyway, as I have no vote here, I hope you do what is best and that is within the rules. Thank you.--SergiSmiler (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it might not be "irrelevant" per se, this tour fails WP:NCONCERTS as there is not sufficient coverage from reliable third party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found sites like Billboard and MTV confirming the dates and tour, that is, that can be enough to get the item is not deleted references.--SergiSmiler (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much detail do the sources go into? Provide the links and I'll assess them to see if they add to notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are the links to Billboard and MTV:

Also, add a the Hollywood Reporter:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/christina-aguilera-announces-bionic-tour-23423

More or less come to the same thing, but if they can save the article ...--SergiSmiler (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..... basically re-hashes of the same thing. Announcements alone aren't exactly enough. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect: Tour fails WP:NCONCERTS and did not happen; all that was announced were tour dates, which were cancelled about a week's time or so after they were announced, as part of a pre-order for the album. Redirect either to Bionic or to Christina Aguilera. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was copy and pasted from another user's sandbox (that was created in 2011). See the original sandbox here. — Status (talk · contribs) 17:44, 8 June 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. Jinian (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Java Posse[edit]

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

The subject is not notable even with current sources. No significant coverage by any mainstream sources such as cnn or the Wall Street journal. Recommend deletion as article is written more as a promotion for the podcast. --Hvcgvngc (talk) 18:06, 2 June 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 June 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not notable per nom --Jgufhvjb (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- please note that the editors of this article are from the podcast itself (account CarlQuinn is very similar to the name of the host of the show Carl Quinn). May actually qualify for speedy deletion.

--Jgufhvjb (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not notable. --BeerBelly82 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, There's some sourcing out there: [14], p82-4; [15]; [16], but most of it is behind paywalls. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources don't make this article notable. Showing up in a lIst of podcasts does not make it notable. --BeerBelly82 (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just not seeing the sourcing necessary to pass WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Respect Party. There is a clear consensus that a separate article isn't warranted, but no consensus to hide the history of the page. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abjol Miah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted by AfD five years ago and he doesn't appear any more notable now than he was then. He fails WP:POLITICIAN. Running for a parliamentary seat does not show notability nor does being chairman of a minor party. He's not even mentioned in the party's article except for his unsuccessful bid for a seat in Parliament. I originally redirected the article to the Respect party's article but that was reverted. Mdtemp (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As all the sources are dated after April 2009 (which is when the first AfD took place), clearly the subject is more notable then he was back then and the recreation of the article is justified.

WP:POLITICIAN lists several grounds for notability including: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. He appears to meet this criterion therefore he is notable. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Respect Party Only coverage appears to be about his unsuccessful candidacy for a seat in Parliament, but merely being a candidate is not enough to show notability. Being chairman of a very minor political party (0 elected local officials), doesn't seem enough to meet WP:POLITICIAN, which is why a redirect is not unreasonable. He became the party chairman in 2006, so he already held that position when his article was deleted in 2009. Papaursa (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is still a minor local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Respect Party. As a local councillor he is NN. Being chairman (not leader) of a minor political party that made a splash at the 2010 election, almost entirely without result - only the re-election of one maverick MP, might give him slight notability, but without evidence of more, I do not think we should keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not notable as an individual politician.68.232.186.227 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Vinogradova[edit]

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

Per my observation this player is not notable and fails tennis notability guidelines. No main draws, no wins in $35000+ ITF events, no FedCup... simply one of 10s of thousands of low ranked players (at least right now). The PROD was removed. These are usually routinely deleted but now we will try the AfD route. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 16:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Wolbo (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Dawejko[edit]

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

Boxer who fails WP:NBOX since junior championships don't show notability. Fails WP:GNG because of a lack of significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable boxer with no significant independent coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here.Jacona (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Andrew (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Macklemore & Ryan Lewis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Redundant to Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. The awards were given to the artists individually, not as a group. Previous AFD kept entirely on weak arguments such as WP:ITSNOTABLE. There is nothing to say about the two together, since 99% of the content is already in their own standalone articles. Three sources are very scant for a supposedly "notable" duo. Note that "Macklemore & Ryan Lewis discography" redirects to "Macklemore discography". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This was the subject of very long discussions earlier, one quite extensive actually. Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macklemore_%26_Ryan_Lewis and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Macklemore_%26_Ryan_Lewis The duo are very famous as a duo and quite an extensive work together as a duo although each has its own materials as well. By the way, I find it is very premature to ask for yet another deletion this soon after the January 2014 discussion. It was clear from both discussion that this joint page was very useful and many pages directed to this particular page rather than just Macklemore page or just Ryan Lewis. The redirecting suggested just to Macklemore was very subjective as if we were forcing the reader to one half of a duo of our choice rather than the reader's actual choice. Let the reader decide after arriving at the joint page. Incidentally the joint page has a tremendously high rate of reference, an additional indication of its importance and utility as a separate page See http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Macklemore_%26_Ryan_Lewis werldwayd (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so freaking notable, then why is it so tiny and undersourced? Hmm? Are you expecting it to just magically grow into an FA overnight? Oh wait, it can't because EVERYTHING IS REDUNDANT TO THEIR SOLO ARTICLES. Again, "Macklemore & Ryan Lewis discography" is a redirect to "Macklemore discography" anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Macklemore & Ryan Lewis discography is a separate independently held page and not a redirect. Plus that if it ever becomes a redirect later on to Macklemore, it would be an injustice giving preferential treatment to Macklemore. The duo do have their distinct series of releases and their distinct discography. Having said that, yes Macklemore does have some of his own releases (without Lewis) which should be reflected in a "Macklemore discography", like his releases The Language of My World and Open Your Eyes and so does Ryan Lewis (without Macklemore) with his own releases reflected in a "Ryan Lewis discography". werldwayd (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discography was a redirect at the time of the comment - two days later the discography was restored. Check the history.--Laun chba ller 22:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2, WP:MUSICBIO#C3, WP:MUSICBIO#C6 and had you looked at the previous nomination you would know that it meets WP:MUSICBIO#C1. I would argue that this nomination meets WP:SK#2c because I take the view that six months should be left before renominating.--Laun chba ller 18:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as nonsensical nomination, Extremely notable & Easily passes WP:MUSICBIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. No rational, guideline-based argument advanced for deletion. Subject obviously meets the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close — Per the consensus of the last AfD. Obviously meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO as a group. STATic message me! 02:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is substantial coverage on the two as a duo to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There might not be much material in this article right now, but it can definitely be expanded to something like LMFAO (Redfoo and Sky Blu (rapper)) or Daft Punk (Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo) or Bad Meets Evil (Eminem and Royce da 5'9"). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:55, 7 June 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 speedily deleted by User:Bgwhite per CSD G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone (wrestler)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted page with no improvements since last deletion. Unable to BLPPROD as page previously deleted. Amortias (T)(C) 17:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt No significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stills no notable. Also, we should protect the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt still fails WP:GNG. References are online forums and blogs. Also recommend salting Brimstone (professional wrestler), William M. Kucmierowski, William M Kucmierowski, William Kucmierowski and Will Kaye. starship.paint "YES !" 01:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally no reason it should be back. It has already been deleted because the sources were awful, and now it doesn't even have any apart from forums and blogs laughing at the fella. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why does this continue to exist???? It is bullshit! 4 nominations and it keeps coming back. Kill it with fire already. Not-notable and simply an advertisement.--WillC 04:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose using fire and salt (but Delete). Fire cannot kill a dragon, and what is dead may never die. If we were dealing with The Yukon Lumberjacks, it'd be well and good. But this looks like a job for Glacier.

More scientifically, sulfur is an oxidizing agent which was long mined from salt domes using the Frasch process. While adding flame gets fire and brimstone, thawing him once he's frozen (with either fire or salt), may release catastrophic amounts of rotten egg smell. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Still a vanity article by a nobody. oknazevad (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Should have been G4ed. STATic message me! 19:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to be fair the first two AfDs failed, but that may be for reasons of sockpupettry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why did this article got resurrected in the first place. It's been nominated for deletion 3 times before that with the third time being a charm to delete the page. Get it off now, and make sure it's never brought back and nominated for deletion for the 5th time. Article creator should also be banned. --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt and ban the creator. As soon as I saw that it was back yet again, I knew I had to remember my login so I could comment. This is quite possibly the most expansive, most staggering bullshit piece I've ever seen in my life, and it keeps coming back despite nobody but the article creator caring. It's time to put the bad penny to the torch. RaveBlack (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a joke, Kudos to Brimstone for managing to make himself known to the internet without ever having wrestled anywhere notable but that isn't enough to warrant this entry, especially now when it's only sourced from message board articles mocking the previous version of the page.Jonny2284 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a moot point with the AfD going the way it is, but I proposed the article for Speedy Deletion under CSD-G4. I'm 96.244.132.35 from the previous deletion discussion and found out about this AfD from a thread on GameFAQS - I know that policy-knowledgable IPs with no edits are highly suspect so this is my explanation. 184.13.28.3 (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woah, I come back from vacation to see this again. Can't say I expected that. At least it didn't get deleted before I saw it in this incarnation. Missing this would've been like sleeping through the rapture. May as well salt this while we're at it. The user that created this isn't RingWars2007, that account is still stale, and they haven't made any edits since. I'll keep an eye out though.LM2000 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt, ban creator. Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Mere deletion apparently did not put an end to this campaign of hoax-vanity-vandalism. A blatant G4 candidate but perhaps the AfD should go to completion to see if there's consensus for salt and/or the banhammer. — Gwalla | Talk 04:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TVB Jade on-air identity[edit]

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

This is an article about an individual Hong Kong station identification over the years. There is no indication of notability, and Google searches do not show any obvious signs of notability, either. The article itself is composed of a series of citations to YouTube, original research, and excessive detail. There really is nothing to merge to the parent article, as there is no reliably sourced text. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable topic referenced only by YouTube and without further reliable sources available according to Google. See History of BBC television idents for what is required to establish notability for this type of topic. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Very little content is sourced, and all of the sources are Youtube. Also, it doesn't meet notability (by a long shot). United States Man (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and then Merge with TVB Jade. TheBlueCanoe 18:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skateman[edit]

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

Little or no sourcing. Only appeared in one comic book before being canceled. p b p 17:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is the worst comic in 25 years, that may be pretty notable. It would be nice to have some referencing... --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It's got an entry on Don Markstein's Toonopedia... I'll see what else I can find. DS (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed on heavy.com's article on the worst superheroes, and Francesco Marciuliano wrote a similarly-themed article on Smosh, and SFX had its own mockery. And then there's some actual historical context from the San Diego Reader. The Comics Journal described it as immortal... which is not necessarily a good thing. Huffington Post listed it as a comic-book movie that should never be made, and ComicsAlliance called it "legendarily bad". Comics101 says "Groundbreaking illustrator Neal Adams fell flat on his face with the colossally dork-tastic Skate Man". In his 'contributor biography' in Jim Ottaviani's "Fallout: J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szilard, and the political science of the atomic bomb", Tom Orzechowski says that, despite all his awards, he is "proudest to have been a contributor to Neal Adams' Skateman, known in the industry as the World's Worst Comic Book".

Oh, and there's a copy on display in the Roller Skating Museum.

Good enough? DS (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Work completed by DragonflySixtyseven meets the Heyman Standard for me. Seems notable enough, as per my earlier comment. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an entry in Rovin's Encyclopedia of Superheroes but I can't find a copy for the page reference. I'd change my vote to Delete if it means this awful comic was removed from my memory. Madam Fatal (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Advertising, and salted Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AbdentTechnology[edit]

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

Clear copyvio of company's website here, here and here. Sending to AfD because article creator removed another editor's prod tag before I could speedy-tag it. Article has already been speedied three times today, so perhaps salting is also in order. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 2 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD was closed (by nominator) some time ago as a no consensus, while partially waiting to see if further particulars would become available. Several editors disagreed with the decision and requested another AfD be proposed at some point in the future.

It does not appear the set of facts has changed since the last AfD therefore the somewhat inclusionist no consensus close does not appear to stand on it's own.

Seeking consensus on the future of this article. Tawker (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The facts have not changed so my opinion has not changed. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no change at all in the article. previous concerns still stand, *Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements garner significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Coverage that does exist is WP:ROUTINE match reporting / transfer speculation, with only minor elements referring to wider performances at youth team level, appearances at that level do not confer notability per WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per CSD#G7. Article's author has shown understanding of WP:NF and its requirement for WP:RS. With no sources outside of Facebook speaking about his film, I am closing early under WP:OUTCOMES. IF or when the film is released and gains coverage to meet WP:NF, undeletion or recreation may be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bondhutto - Ek Modhur Homporko[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Short film made by an unknown director and his group of friends. No indications that any significant coverage has occurred for this film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted because as an independent director sometimes its difficult to be noted. This is my first short film working as a director and actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrinmoyGogoi123 (talk • contribs)

Delete - Short film, independently produced, mentioned only in facebook and youtube. It also appears that the article was created by the director. If this is deleted, there is a copy at the user's page User:MrinmoyGogoi123 that will have to go as well. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete , yes the article is created by the director and there's a difference between a user page and a wiki page. If wiki page got deleted then what are the chances that user page will not get deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrinmoyGogoi123 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mainspace article should be deleted because the film does not meet the criteria for inclusion. The user page should be deleted because Wikipedia user pages are intended to be used to define one's role with respect to the project, not to house content that would not otherwise be acceptable as an article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

success doesn't come in one or two days . Notability takes some time as is first short film.MrinmoyGogoi123 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Success may not come at all. When (if) it does, and the film receives significant coverage in reliable sources, we may be able to create an article about it. But Wikipedia does not exist to promote your film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand . ok you can delete my article for now. I'll think about it again when i'll get significant coverage on reliable sources. Thank youMrinmoyGogoi123 (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on Mronmoy's comment above, can we move this to speedy delete (per WP:CSD#G7)? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 at this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Concerns about the notability of this article. Consisted solely of original research. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability.--SabreBD (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Previous AfD "keep" votes seem to rely on either "it's popular" or "you can't prove it's not notable" as arguments; the latter I think is irrelevent, and the former does not establish notability. In particular, WP:WEB (the web-specific notability guidelines, which can be considered in addition to general guideline criteria in WP:GNG) requires a website to have attracted notice (which I agree the has, in both reliable sources and in blogs and forums), but also requires either significant coverage in reliable sources, or winning a well-known award (see WP:WEBCRIT), which the subject fails to meet.

There is a single paragraph description of the website here:

Comer, M. Tye (April 2001). "Words Get in the Way". CMJ New Music Monthly. CMJ Network, Inc. p. 89. ISSN 1074-6978.

Additionally, Ishkur's Guide is cited or very briefly mentioned in the following works:

Shannon Carter (2009). The Way Literacy Lives: Rhetorical Dexterity and Basic Writing Instruction. SUNY Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-7914-7874-5.
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen (14 December 2006). Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media: Two-volume set. SAGE Publications. p. 838. ISBN 978-1-4522-6551-3.
Li, Tao; Ogihara, Mitsunori; Tzanetakis, George (2011). Music Data Mining. CRC Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-1-4398-3552-4.
Rauber, Andreas; Christodoulakis, Stavros; Tjoa, A Min (2005). Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries: 9th European Conference, ECDL 2005, Vienna, Austria, September 18-23, 2005, Proceedings. Springer. p. 37. ISBN 978-3-540-28767-4.
Collins, Nicholas; Schedel, Margaret; Wilson, Scott (2013). Electronic Music. Cambridge University Press. p. 211. ISBN 978-1-107-01093-2.
Jackson, Brian M. (2013). The Music Producer's Survival Guide: Chaos, Creativity, and Career in Independent and Electronic Music (1st ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-285-19893-4.
Goldschmitt, Kariann Elaine (2004). Foreign bodies: innovation, repetition, and corporeality in electronic dance music. University of California, San Diego. p. 2.
Dittbrenner, Nils (2007). Soundchip-Musik: Computer- und Videospielmusik von 1977-1994 (in German). epOs Music. pp. 112, 113. ISBN 978-3-923486-94-6.
Leimeister, Matthias; Gaertner, Daniel; Dittmar, Christian (2014). "Rhythmic Classification of Electronic Dance Music". Audio Engineering Society Conference: 53rd International Conference: Semantic Audio. Audio Engineering Society.
Wired Blogs (2004-01-23). "Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music". Wired.com.

Agyle (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a web reference source, I think that it is doing rather well in terms of being paid attention to. In addition to the mentions above, "Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music" was suggested as a reference source at "Web resources". Keyboard. September 2004. and its accuracy, good, and ecletic classification system was discussed at Dr. Dawg (November 2004). "Ishkur Excursion". Keyboard: 6.. It was also covered in an article at Hurley, Oliver (11 June 2004). "Friday Review: Little Things we like: Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music". The Guardian. London, England. p. 31 (Arts and Entertainment). which discussed its scope and organization, and praised its detail. Since the nominator's deletion just prior to this nomination, I don't see any OR problems in the article. --Bejnar (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bejnar, remember we're not talking about notability in the popular sense, but Wikipedia's definition of notability, which hinges on significant coverage by independent reliable sources, not just a bullet point, sentence or paragraph. From what I could determine using Google's snippet view, the second of the sources you link is a letter to the editor; I haven't seen either of the other suggested references. Can you describe the depth of coverage in those sources, like how many paragraphs of coverage are devoted to the guide? Agyle (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One paragraph in Keyboard (magazine), and just short of two hundred words in the Guardian. But both were critical assessments of the reference tool. It is not how long it is but whether it is substantive, these were. I am not familiar with Keyboard and "Dr. Dawg", so it may have been letter to the editor. I understand that we apply Wikipedia standards, but a reference tool receives different coverage than a literary masterpiece, we need to accommodate to that reality in interpreting our guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep This article has been sent to AfD at least three times before with one no consensus and the other two verdicts being keep. I am not going to say a Keep verdict can never be overturned later on. But if you have two of them then there is a high burden on anyone calling for the article to be deleted. Has the article changed substantially in a way that it now violates WP:NOT? That would be a good reason. Otherwise the community has twice determined that the subject of this article is notable. And once established, notability is forever. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Neutral. See discussion below and the related discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, your rationale ("a Keep verdict can never be overturned") contradict's Wikipedia's notability guidelines at WP:NTEMP: "...from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested..." Also, the last affirmative notability decision was in 2007, citing (in part) the June 7, 2007 version of the WP:WEB, which was more inclusive than it is today. In particular, #3 in the criteria list, which was later removed, deemed any work notable if it was included on a popular, independently-run, non-user-submitted website, which this work met. Agyle (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agyle thanks for your reply. Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. I did not say that a Keep verdict can never be overturned. Actually I said that I was not staking out that position. I did say that if you have two keep verdicts in AfD then you have a high burden if you want to overturn them, which position I believe is consistent with both community precedent and COMMONSENSE. But that's a long ways from saying it can't be done. And actually I outlined one scenario where it would be quite legitimate. As to the specific point you raise about changed policy, I was not aware of this, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. It is possible that the tightening of standards may be grounds for reconsideration. The question that needs to be asked is, are the more restrictive standards retroactive in their application? If the answer is 'Yes' then I think your point is well made. I also think that Wikipedia had better consider an increase in its budget for red ink. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, I don't agree that a different decision than in the past must meet a higher burden. I'm not familiar with the precedents you mention, and don't recall this being suggested in the many overturned AfD decisions I've seen. And "common sense" is like a "because I think so" argument that can't really be countered. :-) But I admit I can't find any explicit guideline on that or the question of whether to apply 2007 or 2014 guidelines. I raised the two issues in Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Overturning past AfD rulings in a new AfD to solicit additional opinions. Agyle (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User talk:Ad Orientem states: "I did say that if you have two keep verdicts in AfD then you have a high burden if you want to overturn them, which position I believe is consistent with both community precedent." Sorry but COMMONSENSE my ass, the so-called "community" changes, it's nebulous, editors come and go, consensus opinion changes, depending on who is active, fact is, right now, we have a one sentence article with one usable secondary source from 2001. It is up to the keepers here to demonstrate notability using multiple WP:RS sources, and, for the record, something like something like this is not an acceptable citation. Semitransgenic _talk. 10:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cited and discussed, albeit briefly, in some of the book sourced linked above, plus coverage from The Guardian, is enough to meet WP:GNG. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 8 books linked, 6 have one sentence that mentions the subject, and 2 have two sentences that discuss it. I would consider the intent of WP:GNG's "significant coverage" requirement: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page..." Agyle (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Andrew (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the sources, particularly those identified by User:Bejnar are just good enough to kick this over the line. The question of whether the site is a reliable source of information itself, which is touched on in the discussion above, is an entirely separate matter. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Personally I generally wouldn't count one-paragraph article as a significant source of coverage for notability purposes. As WP:WEB says, "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves." I'd be hesitant to consider even the Guardian piece without knowing more about it; sometimes people cite articles in AfDs, and when you check them they turn out to be an opinion piece, an interview, or otherwise lack the type of factual, encyclopedic coverage necessary to write more than a stub like the present article. However, in this case, since it's the only source of coverage I might consider significant, and more than one are needed, it's moot (for me). Agyle (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERMASTUB is an essay which has no force as policy — it's just somebody's opinion. If you look at other works of reference, they commonly have small entries for topics as a means of summarising what's important and making it readily accessible. In our case, there is not the slightest practical problem with a small page. These are actually quite suitable for modern mobile devices with small screens. It's the enormous pages of 100K+ which are bloated to the point of being unreadable which we should be avoiding. Small is beautiful. Andrew (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tin_Shui_Wai#Schools. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chiu Yang Por Yen Primary School[edit]

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

Non notable primary school with local references only. Single claim to notability is a "commendable" rating in a local drama festival. Content can be merged to "Schools" section of Tin Shui Wai. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable primary school. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. We don't generally keep stand-alone article of primary schools, absent unusual coverage not seen here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and, well, how it is right now.　Ansh666 01:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong University Graduates Association Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. Article has no content other than a location. No independent reliable sources found. Can be included in "Education" section of Chai Wan. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would a speedy deletion under A7 be possible in this case as it does not attempt to confer notability? If not Delete Seasider91 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sadly not, A7 specifically states "with the exception of educational institutions". Philg88 ^♦talk 14:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.... that rule strikes me, unfortunately, as ill-founded. Wastes community time. --Epeefleche (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. We don't generally keep stand-alone article of primary schools, absent unusual coverage not seen here. Epeefleche (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Ismail (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing sourcing indicating notability, and the promotional text there has stuck around too long. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:KICK.Mdtemp (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A-7 No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): no independent sources, no evidence of notability, essay. (non-admin closure) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling in east lindsey[edit]

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

Unsourced, original research, and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced essay that largely just discusses recycling. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 13:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay with no encyclopedic content. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FlashTrek: Resurrection[edit]

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

Non-notable Flash game. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2 Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:37, 2 June 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) 14:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely zero coverage in reliable independent sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Links updated and verified for official site, and independent sources coming soon. Game made in Unity not flash and is sequel of notable gaming series. —JDonnelly2014 ^talk_edits 15:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC) — Jdonnelly2014 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Could you mention what these sources are since if we know what the independent sources you plan to add are we will know if they are enough to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability? Also, being independent while important is not itself enough, the sources also have to offer non-trivial coverage and be reliable. On Wikipedia being reliable means that the sources have a history of fact checking and accuracy and more info about that can be found at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. To be clear links to the official site do not make a subject notable and the fact that the game uses the Unity engine is completely irrelevant. I also have doubts that the series is notable since as mentioned bellow an entry for a previous game in the series was deleted for not being notable. Also, even if the series was notable it does not mean that this should automatically get an article due to Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED.--70.49.80.26 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per everything said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Trek 2. I considered potential G4 CSD of this article, but the last revision of the AfD'ed article has substantial differences (not necessarily improvements). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Landesman[edit]

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

Out of 4 3 sources, only 1 is neither self-pub nor broken. Notability banner present, dating from July 2013. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs to be improved and sourced, not deleted. Author of a notable book, Starstruck (reviews and coverage include [17][18], [19]), co-founder of the Modern Review, well-known film critic [20][21]. Not as famous as his ex-wife Julie Burchill but worthy of an entry. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gene93k does a good job of providing sources which prove WP:GNG. Here's more reviews of Starstruck[22][23][24][25] so I think he meets WP:AUTHOR for that book. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You had me at full reviews in the Times of London and the Guardian. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:37, 12 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Still[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxer.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Heron[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - notability not established via WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxer.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Stewart[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP about a non-notable boxer.Mdtemp (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 4 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul S Farmer[edit]

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

As the lead says a "a music teacher and city councillor" heavily edited by the subject. But is not notable, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:Politician and WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable as an author: 5 books by major publisher's, including 3 by Oxford University Press! (Probably the other aspects of the career should be shortenerd somewhat, I too have doubt that they would make him notable otherwise. But the books are clearly sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) ,[reply]

Delete as per nomination:

There appears to be nothing in GNews, books (oddly), or scholar for the subject. Of the three Ox. U. books (can't find the other two) I can find no serious, or any, reviews or mentions re WP:AUTHOR. Of the refs, no mention of him in 1; no proof that the Telegraph mentions him (3); no mention of him in hansard (4) or inline cite YouTube (5). 6 & 7 are not proper links and 8 is 404 dead. He resigned from a local town council (9); turned-up for an archery publicity shot (10); comments on his job (11) and the theft of a council laptop (12), and on local tax levels (13). He is listed as a councillor (14); comments on polling cards in his ward (15); and links to a promotional pdf (16). His town council votes are mentioned (17) and he resigns as councillor (18). He comments on the pedestrianisation of a town street (19) and is shown in a list of council mugshots (20). As a member of the Cattle Market Working Committee he comments on demonstrators (21), pub closing times (22) and smoking bans (23)(24), and presents his council ward election results (25). So fails WP:Politician and WP:GNG.

Remove the waffle and the article boils down to this unverified claim: Paul S Farmer is an author who wrote A Handbook of Composers and Their Music, Music in the Comprehensive School, and Pop Workbook. There are not even any cites that these books were written by this Paul Farmer; and links possible are only to sell sites as far as I can see.

Unfortunately if the inconsequential non-peer-reviewed publications save the article, the entire less than consequential non-notable and other uncited stuff will gallop back in on its saddle. Acabashi (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hansard does report the reference to him, identifiably, although as the head teacher of Dick Sheppard rather than specifically naming him[26]. Student/teacher unrest in London schools (including Dick Sheppard) and the incident in question, following the (xdxexaxtxhx - sorry, got it wrong, as people did at the time) wounding and paralysis of Cherry Groce that led to the Brixton riots (tangential update - Mrs Groce died just over a week ago[27]), are a significant aspect of the socio-political history of the Thatcher era in the UK. The article doesn't adequately communicate the significance of the incident or the subject's involvement but that can be remedied.Opbeith (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed the headlined information about being (possibly or among) the first to create a UK school public examination in pop music, with the source which independently verified this. This was the primary claim for the article's inclusion. This summary removal has not been explained above or even described. Much work has gone into trying to satisfy former criticism, but sometimes true claims cannot be independently verified becaus of the lapse of time, e.g. I have the cutting from the Telegraph but it is not possible for me to cite the source after nearly 30 years. 2 June 2011 (PSF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that someone who summarily removed this "primary claim for the article's inclusion" was the article's creator (above comment) on May 15th, with no mention in the edit summary - I happen to agree with User:Paul Stephen Farmer's implied assertion of the non-notability of the claim that the subject "may" have been the first to create a certain school examination. Acabashi (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~keep I didn't have any trouble finding him in google books (maybe you were searching with the "S", Acabashi?). I've verified all Oxford publications as well as the series of instructional booklets spanning almost a decade. All ISBNs are provided now. Although I do not have access to the sources, it seems that his books have been surveyed--at least three of them are discussed in the snippet-only Popular Music Since 1955: a critical guide to the literature (pp. 77, 99 and 133). There may be more that don't show up in snippet. I'm inclined to agree with DGG, although I'd agree more strongly if more significant critical coverage were turned up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New sources tip me over the edge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with DGG and Moonriddengirl: his publications provide sufficient notability, edp. with the mentions in the literature guide MRG found. LadyofShalott 12:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As DGG points out, obviously notable as an author - published by OUP, Prentice Hall, Hodder and Longman, plus Music in the Comprehensive School was republished in a second edition by OUP. http://www.bookfinder.com/author/paul-farmer/ is a commercial site but the idea that a commercial bookseller can't be trusted not to deceive site visitors with unreliable ISBNs and publishers' names seems a little far-fetched. Also the idea that the inaccessibility of pre-internet book reviews should be considered as suggestive of the non-notability of any author not reviewed in the internet era is a bit extreme. OK, the article's overdetailed and the author has perhaps got the emphasis wrong in places, but Wikipedia doesn't demand that every sentence confirms notability. Time might be better spent polishing the article than being gratuitously sarcastic about the subject. Opbeith (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look finds Music in theComprehensive School is on Leeds University School of Education reading list for the Music Secondary PGCE (Postgrad Certificate of Education) course[28] (though they've got the publisher as CUP instead of OUP), also on the City of Nottingham Music Development Service reading list[29] - not quality reviews, but lasting user endorsement. Opbeith (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that he published under OUP does not necessarily make him a notable author. There are professors at universities who have published under OUP, notwithstanding publication dozens of peer-reviewed articles, and not even they meet WP:Notability guidelines to have their own article. I can hardly believe that this article is still wasting server space. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that says something pretty damning about WP:Notability guidelines Opbeith (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One does not even have to seek recourse to the notability guidelines to establish this article's notability! Biographies of persons should only be admissible to the extent that it would be in the interest of a general reader or if the person in question has gained acclaim (e.g. an international award, extensive coverage in media, a biography written by somebody else). Notability guidelines are only that: guidelines. Yet after observing the way you have all used your discretion, I think that the guidelines would better serve Wikipedia if they were codified and amended appropriately so that we do not see the creation of obscure articles such as these. I welcome further debate. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity is a pretty subjective notion. I'm not clear on what basis access to useful information needs to be rationed other than to limit abuse.Opbeith (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. I have retrieved my 'memorabilia' boxes of papers from the loft, and will over the next few days be adding further infomation and sources where appropriate.Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that Music in the Comprehensive School was reprinted by OUP in a second slightly enlarged edition in 1984 and is also featured in: Stephanie Pitts (2000). Reasons to teach music: establishing a place in the contemporary curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 17, pp 32-42 and Perceptions of Crystallising and Paralysing Factors in the Development of Student Teachers of Music in Scotland @ http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~wae006/petestollery.com/text/crystpar.html#farm79 as well as McPhee, A. and Stollery, P. and McMillan, R. (2005) The Wow Factor? A Comparative Study of the Development of Student Music Teachers' Talents in Scotland and Australia. Educational Philosophy and Theory 37(1):105-118. @ http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/942/1/Aus_revised.pdf also in a PhD thesis Peer Assisted Learning in the Acquisition of Musical Composition Skills by Hilda Mugglestone @ http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2471/1/hmthesis.pdf, and I could go on. But it is not just as an author that this article is justified, but because Paul Farmer was one of the first to develop the use of pop in the secondary curriculum and definitely created the first public examination in pop music (when I said 'maybe' beefore I only did so to try to sound neutral, but facts are facts. Farmer was also one of the youngest comprehensive school heads in the country, and of a school which had exceptional turbulance which gained it national notoriety. I have have many more newspaper cuttings but do not want to clog the article further. Your advice on this and anything else is is very welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Paul, to me notability seems clear on the basis of authorship of the books and, now that you've provided the references, the exam pioneering but the article still reads like a CV. It's important to consider what achievements are substantial and of wider interest and what are not, otherwise the usefulness of the Wikipedia article is reduced and the significance of real achievements is undermined.Opbeith (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Opbeith. Would it be worth expanding what you think deserves notability and contracting what doesn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, the starting point is really to familiarise yourself with general principles. In spite of my own reservations about a number of points it covers, Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a starting point. If you're editing an article, it's not a bad idea to identify a couple of articles about similar subjects and see how they've emerged from the editing process. And the most important thing is to take an objective view. For obvious reasons you have access to relevant information and references. But you don't seem to have used enough discrimination in filtering out information that is unlikely to be useful to a general reader. For example, being elected to three terms as a local councillor is not a unique distinction nor in itself particularly significant. (Uxnxrxexfxexrxexnxcxexdx xmxexnxtxixoxnx xoxfx xwxoxrxkx xixnx xaxnx xuxnxixdxexnxtxixfxixexdx xsxcxhxoxoxlx xixsx xuxnxlxixkxexlxyx xtxox xbxex xuxsxexfxuxlx xtxox xaxnxyxoxnxex xwxhxox'xsx xuxnxaxbxlxex xtxox xoxbxtxaxixnx xfxuxrxtxhxexrx xixnxfxoxrxmxaxtxixoxnx xexlxsxexwxhxexrxex. - deleted, my mistake) As a purely personal view, I think that occasional items of incidental information bring colour and interest to an article, making it useful to the browser as well as the researcher. But the content of this article is swamped with incidental detail distracting from the material that's of wider interest. The modernisation of the music curriculum is a subject of considerable importance as far as contemporary social developments are concerned (I'm referring to the UK), and important individual contributions to that process are worth knowing about - but their significance is made harder to appreciate by all the irrelevant detail. Opbeith (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantially revised this article and await comments. PSF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I think the article Discussion Page is probably the best place to continue talking about the details of the article while leaving discussion of the substantive concerns relating to the proposed deletion here, so I'll carry on there. Opbeith (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete The votes are split, but I don't see anyone overcoming the initial concerns or demonstrating that this is not against WP:NOTSTATS. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Unofficial Football World Championships[edit]

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

Entirely inappropriate split from Unofficial Football World Championships and, in effect, a lengthy repeat of what can be found on the UFWC website. UWFC is a barely notable method of calculating an alternative football world champion, largely based around a book by Paul Brown. This long list article with no sources other than, presumably, the UFWC website, is a prime example of what Wikipedia shouldn't be about. Sionk (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS for this unofficial "championship" that is a function of stats by definition rather than any form of actual tournament. Fenix down (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Unofficial Football World Championships. Giant Snowman 16:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Unofficial Football World Championships already has an unjustifiably verbose prose summary of the virtual history of the "Championship", there is nothing in this list that should be transferred to that article. --LukeSurl^{t c} 16:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Factual, verifiable content on a notable topic. Leave it be. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Unofficial Football World Championships. The information is important to the UFWC article but not as a seperate entity. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not important because it hasn't received wider coverage other than the UFWC website. Therefore to keep it in any form is undue. Sionk (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I have been one of the main contributors to both this page and the 'parent' article). Since the decision to consider FIFA recognition of a match as irrelevant compared to opportunities for exposure, this has lost any intellectual or academic claim to be taken as a disinterested record of fact. It has become clear that Paul Brown is not a trustworthy custodian of this as a 'title' worthy of tracking. If there is a belief that the website or book is important enough to have an article, that is fine: the title as currently constituted is not, and the parent article should reflect that. Kevin McE (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE to Unofficial Football World Championships and convert to redirect. I have created the redirect and will leave the merge to the judgement of those that edit the material. Whether it is "fair" to redirect the Women's and not the Men's falls under WP:WAX, and as Luke points out, we aren't here to right great wrongs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Unofficial Football World Championships[edit]

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

The (men's) Unofficial Football World Championships is barely notable, this simply isn't. No evidence of reliable source attention given to the women's championship beyond the UFWC message-boards. "Tracking the championship" and "UFWC at major championships" are overlong narratives given to what is a virtual title not conceptualized until the mid 2000s. LukeSurl^{t c} 11:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very selectively to Unofficial Football World Championships, which is worded almost identically and seems, in effect, to be about a book by Paul Brown, largely cited to primary sources (or sources by Brown). I'd be tempted to nominate Unofficial Football World Championships to be quite honest, filled as it is with off topic fan cruft and lengthy stats. Needs a major clean up, though unfortunately there are so many male footy fans on Wikipedia it will be a thankless battle I expect! Sionk (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the article state, an unofficial championship. No real coverage of this, as the "championship" is inherently just a function of some stats, hence why almost all the sources cited are to either primary sources or stat sites. Fenix down (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if possible, merge if necessary. It's somewhat notable, but mostly because the men's version is notable. That makes me want to merge it, but I'm disinclined to make a women's soccer page just a subset of a men's page. It seems to send the wrong message, somehow. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The men's championship can make an weak case for notability as it is very occasionally mentioned in news media. This isn't the case for the women's analogue, which is only covered on the UFWC message boards (where it was invented). This is a clear-cut failure of the GNG. While this somewhat reflects the inequality of men's and women's sports, Wikipedia cannot be the place to right great wrongs. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Unofficial Football World Championships. Giant Snowman 18:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs improvement, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smallchief (talk 21:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond a statistical database, the Women's Unofficial Football World Championships has not been mentioned in a single reliable source outside of the UFWC website. This article fails WP:NOTSTATS as it consists entirely of a narrative constructed around [30]. Considering this database stops at 2006, I can only assume that 2006-2014 data is original research. --LukeSurl^{t c} 09:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely fails WP:GNG as well as running up against WP:NOTSTATS. Also, since notability is not inherited, Coemgenus's comment above suggesting parity is inapposite. Improvement cannot save an article which is solely the domain of a single forum. --Bejnar (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Wales Premier Cricket League[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability despite article being in existence since 2008. Not a single ref. Fails WP:ORG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References can be found, plus this is one of the ECB's few regional premier leagues, which are deemed by WP:CRIC to be notable. – Pee Jay 11:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was one reference on the page at the time it was nominated for deletion. A cursory check of local news media confirms that it is notable enough for its matches and teams to be covered. Longwayround (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This league is a member of the ECB Premier Leagues which have long been classified as notable per WP:CRIN. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The need for any article to meet notability criteria exists whatever a particular Wiki-project may believe. The fact that local newspapers report matches that are of teams within a league does not, of itself make that league notable. Notability is not inherited (upwards or downwards). The reference noted by Longwayround above was, of course, the league's own web-page - not an independent reliable source as required by notability guidelines. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack is arguably the most credible of sources for world cricket. I've got the 2006 edition to hand and it covers ECB League Cricket for the 2005 season on pages 946 to 952. It verifies our "belief" that the ECB Premier Leagues are notable by confirming the start of premier league cricket in 1999 and stating that it represents the pinnacle of achievement in this type of cricket (i.e., one day matches involving local clubs and directly comparable with the higher levels of non-league football which are similarly regional in character). There were 24 ECB premier leagues in 2005, the number having increased since 2004 after more were duly recognised as fulfilling ECB standards and I think more have been created in the meantime. North Wales was created in 2001 and is now in its 14th season as a premier league. If you google the league you will find that there are firm references to it in CricketArchive, Cricket Wales, the ECB and others. The CricketArchive find refers to a "major cricket tournament". Instead of raising your issue here, why haven't you tagged the article, which is a stub pending development, with the ref improve tag? Jack | ^{talk page} 14:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can anyone point to non-local substantial RS coverage, which would meet GNG? Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Wisden? As written just above? Wisden devotes an entire chapter every year to the ECB premier leagues per the example given above. Did you not read the previous input? Jack | ^{talk page} 05:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the opening line of the article on Wisden, "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack (or simply Wisden or colloquially "the Bible of Cricket") is a cricket reference book published annually in the United Kingdom. It is considered the world's most famous sports reference book" per [31] aand subpages of [32]. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIN and User:BlackJack and User:SGGH above. Johnlp (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all reasons given above - WP:CRIN and Wisden especially. - 97rob (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is appropriate to have an article on the league, as bringing together amateur cricket clubs in an area, but we shoul not allow articles on participating clubs or their players (unless otherwise notable). Accoringly the winners list should be de-redlinked. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's a good point, Peter. WP:CRIN makes clear that it is the leagues which are notable. Individual league clubs are not therefore notable per se, though some clubs may be notable individually for other reasons. I will delink the clubs in the article's list. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, WP:CRIN states that all clubs in such leagues are notable: Clubs, teams and venues: "...for Great Britain, those clubs which have competed... one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues." Harrias ^talk 16:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (Non-admin closure). No delete votes, nomination withdrawn. Anarchangel (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Haven[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of secondary sources fails GNG. Notability is not inherited (from Tor (anonymity network)). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Haven was not closed. Widefox; talk 10:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom several secondary sources on the project. Feel free to speedy close. Widefox; talk 18:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does pass GNG. Article was in a pretty poor state when AfDed, to be sure. I'm in the process of improving it, however, and not yet done. Does not need to inherit notability from Tor, but the fact that it developed Tor doesn't hurt. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good work, WP:HEYMANN met, withdrawn. Widefox; talk 18:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smoger[edit]

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

Notability of boxing refereee has not been established. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Spinks[edit]

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

Notability far from clear with information delivered in an ancedotal way. The only reference is actually about his great nephew. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOX and GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP about a non-notable boxer.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Sieger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet WP:NBOX. Issues raised in first AfD have not been fixed mainly references to show notability. Only source is the BoxRec and that shows no significant fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. I don't see how this article survived the earlier AFD.Mdtemp (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet NBOX or GNG. I have to agree with Mdtemp, I'm surprised this survived the first AfD. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 4 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ledes[edit]

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

Overly detailed promo-vehicle. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 08:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me why this article is promotional and why overly-detailed is a bad thing? I'd like to change it so the article can be kept. I am new to wikipedia. Thank you. Soundisimportant (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some changes to the article to what might be considered promotional. Please review. Soundisimportant (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits but it does not change my opinion. Especially the overly detailed descriptions of his documentaries (not even feature films) are problematic. Did he make any feature firms? Then please state this clearly (possibly splitting the filmography in feature films and documentaries). The lead is too short and does not summarize the article. But most deadly is the lack of any sources in the section background (that reads as a biography). The Banner talk 14:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it to make it more clear. These are all feature films, not documentaries (except for last entry into "career" section. Soundisimportant (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep I've removed press release sources and sources associated with the artist (such as websites dedicated to artist work). Rest of the sources are: NYtimes, Slantmagazine, avclub, filmmakermagazine, seattletimes, hollywood reporter, LA Times, variety, tribecafilm.Soundisimportant (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDirected notable movies The Caller[33] and A Hole in One[34], ergo meets WP:CREATIVE. They may not have been great movies, but Rotten Tomatoes indicates that they were widely reviewed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. But yeah this article needs some serious work. I have added a bunch of tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I have replaced all bare links with cite web. Did a few other edits and longer lead. Soundisimportant (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all the issues stated in the head notice ~~Keep~~ Soundisimportant (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking the Keep !votes after your first. Editors are welcome to comment as much as they like in an AfD discussion, but we !vote only once. On a side note, thanks for the edits. The article is looking a bit better. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thank you. Soundisimportant (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added more citations to biographical entry. Soundisimportant (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the issues in the header. Any other suggestions? Thank you. Soundisimportant (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When the movies are notable, you should write separate articles for them. Not use a misleading internal link to point to them. The Banner talk 16:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article definitely needs some work but subject is notable and well sourced. We need to significantly trim down the page and cut out a lot of the unnecessary content. Meatsgains (talk) 06:57, 9 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Palestine[edit]

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

Fails WP:V as noted at the talk page 3 weeks ago. Notified creator here at the same time but no response. Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books searches come up with nothing. The article appears to be fully WP:OR. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to be based entirely on unsupported original research. There is no evidence that this term is actually used as a political concept in any source at all, reliable or unreliable. Every reference I have found is to a chance juxtaposition of the two words. This article is a personal essay, and is out of place on Wikipedia, which is not a forum. RolandR (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay expressing some uninteresting opinions with basically no source support. Not redeemable. Zero^talk 09:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with comments of the nominator and others. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. 100% WP:OR.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 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 - Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Egyptian Jews (1956)[edit]

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

Fails WP:V and WP:N as described in detail at the talk page 3 weeks ago. Notified creator here at the same time but no response. The issues are described in detail at the talk page, but in summary, every single one of the six sentences purporting to relate directly to the title of the article is factually incorrect, the relevant parts of the key source are questionable anyway because they are copied verbatim from a political advocacy organisation, the expulsion of Jews was an integral part of a wider set of expulsions post the Suez Crises and there are no WP:RS anywhere which focus primarily on any of these expulsions (where information is available it is presented in a tangential fashion). The solution for this article is simply to improve the sourcing at Suez_Crisis#Egypt_2. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:WDAFD. No support for proposal, and IZAK's interpretation is a reasonable compromise. I will leave for others to close. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Proclamations declaring that "all Jews are Zionists and enemies of the state" as described in this source would support the claim that this is a particular event with specific relevance to Egyptian Jewry. Gilbert's text is one of many sources that cover the expulsions and come on top of other book-length coverage in The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry and ample reliable and verifiable sources in newspapers and magazines. Specific issues regarding the content of the article should be addressed by editing the text and including additional sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on Gilbert on the article talk page. On the book-length coverage, this refers to the 1948-67 Exodus, which we cover in detail here, not specifically to the 1956 expulsions as your comment seems to suggest. Beinin, Kremer, and Laskier, the three specialist authors on the broader subject, touch only lightly on the 1956 expulsions of Jews, without in my opinion enough detail to justify a whole article focused on it. For the avoidance of doubt, I think this subject should be covered in wikipedia, but I don't see the justification for it being more than a subsegment of the three articles where we already cover it (here, here, and here). From what i have read I don't think there will never be enough detail available to create a meaningful length article, and this article is all wrong so would need a complete overhaul anyway. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oncenawhile: You are now changing your tune that only reflects that you did not think this nomination through thoroughly enough because if, as you now claim, you now feel that this topic should or could become part of any one of: Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#Egypt 2, or History of the Jews in Egypt#After the foundation of Israel in 1948, or Suez Crisis#Egypt 2 then you should have either opened a discussion on a talk page about "merging" the articles or the content, or suggested in this nomination that the article be "merged and redirected" (as I have suggested below, while also keeping all good content) but instead you opted to throw out the baby with the bathwater and to solve a relatively minor editorial issue with the proverbial dynamite of WP:TNT, that is just too extreme as a solution in this particular case. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK, thanks as always for your thoughtful and content-rich posts. I am ok with your suggestion, and you are right that I didn't explain myself properly. The reason i came to afd is that I believe that there is nothing in this article which is not already covered elsewhere (except of course the parts that are simply made up / wrong, obviously). I am happy to be proven wrong, and am fine with your proposal below re the destination for the M&R. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oncenawhile: Thank you for your kind comments and agreeing that "Merge and Redirect to History of the Jews in Egypt#After the foundation of Israel in 1948 and retain all relevant material" is a good idea. I just feel that stopping at "1956" is odd because it's also about what happened in 1955, 1954, etc counting backwards in years to 1948 and before that to WWII and the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt under a lot of Nazi influences, and on to 1957, 1958, 1959 etc going forward in years to the present actually, with the few remaining Jews and Israelis (diplomats, tourists) also facing this issue still in Egypt every day if they find themselves there. Just looks like a bit of a WP:CONTENTFORK desperation at work all for very good reasons mind you. It's a poorly thought out title and somewhat arbitrary which is why I suggest it be made part of a "wider set of circumstances/years". But now that this AfD is underway I am not sure what the closing procedure is or should be, but you as the nominator must have some say here. Feel free to ask what to do next. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are issues on the talkpage. The only posts there are from the nominator. I think the nominator would do well to ask for comments on the talkpage before coming to the one-sided conclusion that the article must be deleted. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to History of the Jews in Egypt#After the foundation of Israel in 1948 and retain all relevant material as this phenomenon is part of a tide of anti-Jewish policies that saw the Egyptian Jewish community of 75,000+ Jews face waves of antisemitism, discriminatory laws and waves of cruel government laws and decrees to push them out. There is already mention of the events prior to and post 1956 in the History of the Jews in Egypt#After the foundation of Israel in 1948 so some sections in this article are a bit of a duplicate. But it does break new ground and cites WP:N and WP:RS and WP:V sources, and if it is kept it should and can be expanded and fit in with other topics like this to be found in Category:Expulsions of Jews. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect -- This article is largely based on a single scholarly article. I do not think it adds enoughto the potential merge target to warrant its survival as a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -as an Israeli and a Jew I had seen this story of expulsion many times on History books, TV and radio, and can say it is a very important piece of history.--Midrashah (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wilson (basketball)[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. He has not played professional or even semi-professional basketball in his limited career. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC) See here and here for more. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep By simply looking at who he plays for he plays for a team in a professional league Seasider91 (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, he does not play in a professional league. He currently plays for the Coburg Giants in the Big V D2M – that is not a professional league, it's not even semi-professional it's so far down the Australian basketball tier (4th league down in Australia basketball i.e. 1. NBL 2. Big V 3. Big V D1M 4. Big V D2M). He has not played professional basketball! DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The team it appears he is signed with isn't one that suggests notability. The first division NBL in Australia does, but this league appears several rungs below that. Additionally, I don't find significant sources to meet WP:GNG when I search, which makes WP:NBASKETBALL moot anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly, it's baffling why this article was created in the first place. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NBASKETBALL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Danger 1996 demo tape[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS, or WP:NSONG. Mere existence is not sufficient for notability: Notability requires verification. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find independent coverage in reliable sources for this demo; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 05:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is due to connection to album Where have all the merrymakers gone? --Hootsk-- (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should be retained because it is some of Harvey Danger's most popular and most-discussed work released in another, earlier format. Although this cassette did not appear in the media—it was not well known to journalists, as it was never distributed to them or sold—it is very well known to music industry professionals, principally as a major missed commercial opportunity. Peter Koepke, then the president of London Records, heard the tape in 1997, yet allowed his then-intern Greg Glover to release most of it and a subsequent recording on Glover's Arena Rock Recording Company as the album Where have all the Merrymakers gone? Koepke was then forced to license the same recordings back from Glover in 1998 when they became popular. --Hootsk-- (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: i wrote the following before noticing that some citations have been added, and apologize for my haste. I will await the result of the discussion, but will keep the text since some points still stand.@Hootsk:Please read Wikipedia:Notability, an important guideline, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, a Wikipedia policy. From the WP:Notability intro: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Even if this tape is well-known among professionals, verification is still needed (and presumably would be easier to locate than were it not the case). If you have any reliable sources that call it a "major missed commercial opportunity", please cite them, otherwise it is indistinguishable from a personal opinion (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). These notability and verifiability guidelines are in place to prevent original research, and to ensure that Wikipedia articles summarize existing knowledge rather than unduly promote or highlight subjects that never received attention in the first place. Should this demo tape fail notability, it can be redirected to, say Harvey Danger, and the tape discussed there (with citations, quite lacking in that article as well), until the point when enough reliable sources are identified to warrant a separate article.--Animalparty-- (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. —Davey2010→ ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. No coverage in reliable sources found. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The story told for the "Keep" plea of this AfD is interesting, and might support an article; but the article itself has no references for anything about the 1996 demo tape (only generally about the Harvey Danger group). There is nothing RSed to indicate that the tape itself is notable. If "music industry professionals" know the story of this tape, then there must be some mention of it in some independent RS industry publications somewhere. Unless RS are found to support the notability of the tape, merge the information in Harvey Danger 1996 demo tape into Harvey Danger & delete per nom. — Who R you? Talk 04:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Driveme.in[edit]

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

Non-notable software product, written like an advertisement. Lack of significant reliable sources. The ChampionMan 1234 04:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:IMPACT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references in English. The one non-english ref, to a brief television news story, is on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find independent reliable sources, other than the one cited news story, so failed to meet notability standards. Agyle (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally have articles on primary schools, absent unusual non-local RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable Primary School with local sources only. Already has an entry at Primary schools in Singapore. Could go into a new "Schools" section at Sembawang. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Epeefleche: There are a bunch of other NN primary schools in the Primary schools in Singapore article - are these on your radar?. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tx -- I've been trying to slowly make my way through primary schools generally. So, yes ... but there are so many, it's been taking some time. Can always use the help of others. Epeefleche (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. There are a number of Hong Kong schools that need consideration too. I've made a start on those. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable primary school. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Unity Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clear violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:ORG and WP:GNG. First nomination was closed as non consensus because not a single editor participated; renominating speedily per WP:NPASR. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. All sources excepting one, fail WP:RS. A Google did not yield enough to ring the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Non notable centre. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JacOS[edit]

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

Non-notable new operating system Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advert for non-notable - promotion by publisher (and author?) of his/her non-notable new OS. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sum 41 discography. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the House of Blues, Cleveland 9.15.07[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. This album provides no sources and so little information which is hardly worth having its own article. --Wudumindif (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sum 41 discography, where this live album is listed. No coverage found in reliable sources for this release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 05:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sum 41 discography. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does This Look Infected Too?[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. This album provides no sources and so little information which is hardly worth having its own article. --Wudumindif (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to Sum 41 discography, where this EP and Japan chart peak are mentioned. Although it charted, I could not find coverage for this release to warrant a standalone article; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 05:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Bannigan[edit]

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

This article fails WP:Politician. He was not notable, he was a local councillor. While his death on polling day was tragic, would there be an article if he had died a week earlier or later? He was not notable for anything else in his life. and the article was only created after his death. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Snappy (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that his death disrupted an election. It had to be cancelled, the ballots had to be destroyed, new candidates have to be selected and the vote has to be run again. Therefore whether he died last week or next, as suggested by the nominator, is irrelevant. He died when he died and disrupted the election, an unprecedented, possibly unheard of, event. In addition, the creation of an article after the subject has died is not unusual. Herman Dillon and Anand Modak died on the same day as Owen Bannigan.

Keep. The nominator's rationale, in referring to this guideline, is clearly questionable, possibly invalid.

Please see the addition to 'Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.'

'A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.' Check. He has received national-level press coverage in multiple reliable sources. --86.45.164.21 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He received no national coverage while he was alive. So what 86.45.164.21 is saying is that the only notable about this man is his death, she may think that's a valid reason but I think it's dubious. Also, please refrain from the What about X arguments. We are discussing this article not the others mentioned. Snappy (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true we are discussing this article and this article only, the nominator clearly invited comparison with the two others to which she refers by correctly stating that "the article was only created after his death" though what this means for its possible deletion is anyone's guess. --86.45.164.21 (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invite any comparison. 86.45.164.21 did and she is incorrect. Snappy (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator inserted into her nomination "the article was only created after his death" - did she not? --86.45.164.21 (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did, so?. The objector (86.45.164.21) is the one who made comparisons, didn't she? Snappy (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator invited these comparisons by doing what she has just admitted to - did she not? The nominator did not provide any evidence for that part of her argument. The evidence which the nominator would prefer not to be presented here discredits this part of her doubtless carefully written rationale. --86.45.164.21 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The objector (86.45.164.21) has not provided any evidence either, has she? Instead she attacks me, oh well! Snappy (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence regarding creation after death is there on this page if the nominator wishes to see it, though evidence of an attack is not so forthcoming, I should hope. This is a deletion discussion, the purpose of which is to provide reasons to delete or keep, based upon the nominator's rationale for deleting. The nominator wrote in her rationale "and the article was only created after his death" - how is this relevant to the decision regarding keep or delete? The evidence against her statement was given, was then rejected by her and now she is denying that it was ever presented in the first place, and, furthermore, is claiming to be under attack. Who is "attacking" who here? --86.45.164.21 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86.45.164.21 keeps harping on that I wrote that "the article was only created after his death". Why is she obsessed with this? I did write it, it is a fact. She created the article after Brannigan's death, I am pointing out this fact. Snappy (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is true but not as an argument for deletion. When the nominator was presented with an argument as to why she referred to an essay which indicated she did not understand her own reasoning. --86.45.164.21 (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he seems to fall on just the right side of the line in WP:Politician. It's irrelevant why he received "significant press coverage": he did receive it. But I'd be equally happy with a redirect if the information about him were included instead in an article on the election.Jsmith1000 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on balance. (Close thing, though.) Deb (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being a county-level councillor is not a claim of notability that would ordinarily get a person into Wikipedia in the first place (see WP:POLITICIAN), and the fact that the admittedly unusual quirk of dying on election day happened to generate a small burst of national coverage for one or two days does not make him any more encyclopedically notable than he would be if he'd died six months earlier or not at all. Not everybody who happens to get their name into a few newspaper articles qualifies as notable for our purposes; their notability has to be genuinely sustainable somehow beyond one or two days worth of "human interest" coverage. I fail to see any reason at all why a biography of a local county councillor who was "notable" only for the timing of his death is something anybody will actually still need to see five or ten or fifty years from now, which is the test that determines whether somebody belongs in an encyclopedia or not. Wikinews, sure, but not here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to article on the elections. Temporary (and unfortunate) coverage. Murry1975 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with user:Bearcat's logic. There is no valid reason for encyclopedic coverage of a person whose death, and death alone, made him a brief human interest story. That an election was scrapped is certainly interesting, and could be a topic within the article on elections in general or elections within his jurisdiction in specific. We are discussing an article about a person, and the accomplishments of that person, while alive, makes him notable or not... not the unfortunate timing of his demise. Nickmalik (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is mentioned in Monaghan County Council election, 2014 which is the proper place for this event. Also, a comment above by 86.45.164.21 implies the whole County Council election was cancelled. In fact the election will only be re-run in the Ballybay-Clones area (6 seats), as the election and counting of votes and electing of the other 12 members went ahead in the other two local electoral areas of the County Council. Snappy (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--PatrickGuinness (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable politician.68.232.186.227 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:40, 9 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wevorce[edit]

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

There would seem to be media coverage, but the company is tiny and the article somewhat promotional. The only people who would care about their fees and success rate are prospective clients, not readers of an encyclopedia. Looking at the coverage in detail: Ref 2 is the best, but it's based almost entirely on what the company founder says, and seems to be written by a member of the Forbes staff specializing in "Entrepreneurship. By women, of women, for women. " Ref 3 is about a number of YC's projects, not just this firm. ref 3 is another interviews based on whatever the founder says; and so is ref 5, and the un-numbered ones newly added.

There is a general question here: we need to decide what to do about the many very small start up companies that get funding from microfinancing sites and crowd-funding sites. Just a few years ago they would have been privately financed, and nobody would have noticed them. Currently they get rather extensive coverage, presumably based on PR efforts and their greater visibility. I think using the GNG is this sort of situation is capable of destroying the legitimacy of WP coverage of business. Rather, we need some sort of minimum screen, such as we use in some other fields. At present the only way to deal with the GNG to to try to pick apart the sourcing, as I have attempted above..I don;t really think that's the best way to discriminate. And, as has been pointed out before, almost all media coverage of commercial enterprises is driven to some extent by PR. Should we then abandon the field? (my own suggestion for a screen has been NYSE listing or the equivalent, admittedly a very high barrier & useless for private companies). Personally, I think the GNG no longer makes the sense it did ten years ago--it biases WP to thw world of the last fewyears. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG certainly does led to some recent-ism, but getting covered by forbes, BBC etc is going to be somewhat close to the "gold standard". weak keep as this article is not the place to rewrite GNG. We follow the sources - if the sources lead to a rabbit hole of fluff, unfortunately thats where we go. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try delete. The article seems to meet the GNG criteria so, as advised, I shall presume notability. Despite that, I think the topic is at present not sufficiently notable to justify a WP article. Note: I reserve the right to !vote keep for topics failing the criteria – indeed I do so when I feel very brave, and sometimes people agree with me (no diffs in case troops with assault weapons revisit those articles). Thincat (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH quite comfortably:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree it technically passes the GNG. My argument is that we should delete it none the less, because it does not have any significance, as can be seen from actually reading the references. Even in its current wording, the GNG is explicitly not a promise to include every product that meets it. Put another way, I am saying that the material in the articles does not show suitability for an encyclopedia, under the basic policy of NOT DIRECTORY, and the principle underlying NOT NEWS, which is more important than the guideline that is supposed to implement these. WP:N. We accept it for news events and for people; I am suggesting we implement it for businesses also. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With coverage in Forbes, The New York Times, BBC News and The Wall Street Journal, I'm retaining my keep !vote above; also per WP:NTEMP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Re-written press releases, blurbs, and third-party sites that just re-post company produced material (or analyst reports that are paid for) I do not believe meet the GNG standard, because GNG says the sources must be independent. However, when journalists write actual articles and there is speculation/paranoia that PR had some corrupting influence on the publication's editorial that makes it no longer independent, that seems like a bias in the sources argument and a contradiction of our core principles. We just repeat what the sources say. This argument that PR influence disqualifies otherwise independent sources would virtually prohibit us from covering companies at all, being that even critical press articles are usually prompted by the PR team of the company's critics. CorporateM (Talk) 13:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although our !votes are at odds, I agree with quite a bit of that. The article is transparently an advertisement – it is not trying to deceive anyone and no one will be deceived. What is surprising is that, despite the time and effort that has been put in to setting up all this chain of re-reporting, the article seems to have the modest ambition of generating the caché of a presence on Wikipedia. A straightforward change (left as an exercise for the reader) would make it far more effective as an ad (and coincidentally the article would become more encyclopedic). Thincat (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused, both because the term "the article" is ambiguous (a source or the Wikipedia page?) and because of the statement that a change to the article, done by the reader, would make it an ad, which would also make it more encyclopedic? Maybe it is too early in the morning for me ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest and sorry to wake you up so early! Both times I used "article" I meant this Wikipedia article. Yes, a reader would not change it but an editor might. A change wouldn't make this "article" into an ad (it is one already) but it could make it a far better ad and a somewhat better article in WP terms. Thincat (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with comments above that GNG tends to increase systematic bias towards the recent past. My prefered solution at this time, however, is to relax GNG in its application to historical topics. James500 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of whoever ends up closing this, could you clarify your position? It's unclear from what you wrote if you are arguing to keep or to delete this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it passes the Wikipedia:General notability guideline, as everyone here accepts that it does, then personal views about the importance (or otherwise) of the organisation are of no relevance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and summarises what reliable sources have chosen to report on. Multiple reliable sources have chosen to report on this organisation in detail. Anything else is Wikipedia:I don't like it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources say it's a company involved in alternative dispute resolution, and a financial success at Y Combinator. Since you can't redirect to both of those, it has to be kept as an independent article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom's concerns are quite valid, but that is for a broader discussion. Article currently meets the generally-accepted GNG in its current state, so this article, no matter how I feel about how "notable" it really is, should not be deleted. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 17:15, 11 June 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)} 01:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pajaritos, bravos muchachitos[edit]

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

WP:NALBUMS JacobiJonesJr (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I come from the Spanish Wikipedia, so first of all I apologize in advance because I might make some mistakes assuming that both Wikipedias' guidelines are alike. I might need a better explaination since I'm not familiar with the specifics of enWiki.

It it stated that the article might not be notable enough according to WP:NALBUMS where all that is said is that relevance is not inherited and as long as an album meets the general notability guideline it should be fine.

I'm not incurring on an inherited relevance argument since the article has plenty of references about the album itself. It meets the GNG because it has recieved significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. That is: Many articles on nationwide distribution printed and Web media in Argentina talk with detail about the album. To name some of them La Nación, Página/12, Télam, Rolling Stone (Argentina), Todo Noticias, Radio Continental.

So all in all, I think the content is properly referenced, verifiable, and deserves to stay in Wikipedia. Whether it should have an article of its own, or be under the discography section of Indio Solari is something I'm not confident enough to say.

Last, I'd like to state that altough in Wikipedia:NALBUMS#Recordings it's suggested to read WikiProject Classical Music's guideline notability of recordings I take this as what it's said to be: "advice about style". I don't think it should be put above more broadly accepted guidelines.

Regards. --Facu89 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the footnotes already in the article this appears to have sufficient coverage in reliable Spanish-language sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Am I missing something? The Spanish language sources appear to provide more than enough evidence of meeting GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:13, 12 June 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. While the socking issue is rather stale by now, there is consensus that this is either a dictionary definition or fringe in its present form. If someone wants me to userify the content or provide it via email for any worthwhile selective merging into Pharmakos or anywhere else, let me know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmakeia[edit]

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

multiple issues unresolved since 2008; unresolveable hodgepodge article Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put a note on the Talk page of the article creator, Aldrich Hanssen and learned that the user was a sock of Sarsaparilla. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this article is a strange hodepodge of etymology, biblical studies, and some wierd assertions about magic and medicine, barely sourced. I thought about merging it into Pharmacy or History of pharmacy but there is no "there" there, to even merge from. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will this keep me safe from karmic retribution?

Delete - "Wifi in computers is the same frequency as a microwave oven and for behavioral modification purposes the intensity can be increased remotely so dissidents on the internet often get irradiated by intense microwave transmissions from their own computer making them feel hot and irradiated." WTF is that? This is just pseudo-scientific garbage dressed up as some sort of quasi historical dictionary definition. Each of the (very disparate) ideas has been synthed together to create some sort of gibberish whole. Nothing here worth keeping but for what it's worth, we already have Pharmakos which would seem to cover most of what is being suggested here but in much more coherent form. Stalwart111 03:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REMAIN - KEEP - I am against the deletion of this article because it contains issues that God hates and anyone supporting the deletion of this article will certainly get bad karma and karma means "pay back" because God will be the one who will deal with them. The Greek word Pharmakeia is in the Bible and this article explains what is truly meant by Witchcraft and Sorcery by the original writers of the Bible so therefore the article should remain. By the way that information about directed energy weapons was recently added. :2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Active Denial System and Directed-energy weapon Directed Energy Weapons and black ops is not "pseudo-scientific garbage" Stalwart111 - You should go see the videos on metanoia-films.org/films

Stalwart111 if you do not believe the Wifi in the computer is the same frequency as a Microwave oven then look it up because as unbelievable as it is it is true. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also anyone wanting to support this article remain speak up now because God will certainly give you blessings for not remaining silent and letting these two delete this article. :2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I believe you. I connected to my hot spot this morning and cooked the ham sandwich on my desk. Bring on the karma. Stalwart111 04:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most microwave ovens for home use operate at a standardized frequency of 2.45 GHz

Wi-Fi, also spelled Wifi or WiFi, is a local area wireless technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data or connect to the internet using 2.4 GHz UHF and 5 GHz SHF

Stalwart they are not cooking anyone. They intensify the beams with commands sent to the dissidents computer causing them to feel very hot and irradiated even though the air condition is on. It is enough to cause extreme discomfort to deter them from their internet activities not to cook anybody. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Breitbart announced he was going to release videos of Obama during his college days that would expose Obama and he was driven out of his house with orbital directed energy weapons where he took off walking the streets in the middle of the night to escape the orbital beams targeting his house and he was given a heart attack not far from his home. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111 I do not think you have anything to fear from the Mafia so you can put your tin foil hat away because you are being a good little Nazi. It is God who you have to worry about. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with User:Jytdog about the page. This is nonsense. It says nothing meaningful in a coherent manner. The article appears to assert that people who wear makeup are participating in witchcraft or, at least, are under the control of the makers of those substances (through the means of the makeup itself, and not the commercial marketing that creates demand for such products). In other words, most adult women and many men, in western countries, are being controlled by witches. No reliable sources for that assertion, of course. Add in a random unsourced claim of energy weapons. There are some sources for the word, but not the conclusions or assertions that this article associates with the word. There is no evidence that these assertions are from somewhere else, and therefore, the article may represent Original Research (although it is difficult to use the word Research in this context). There's just nothing in this article worth saving. Nickmalik (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it with fire, and ~~maybe~~ redirect to ~~pharmacy, or a similar topic~~ pharmakos (again, only after deleting what's here). This content is unremarkable even by pseudoscience standards. My learned colleagues Stalwart111 and Nickmalik have said it better than I can. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely redirect this title to pharmakos per McGeddon. Whether to keep the dicdef that was previously here even in the edit history... I don't particularly care. As McGeddon rightly says, it was just a bland dicdef. Standard practice when there's anything salvageable does seem to be to preserve in the form of edit history. In short, I'm good with either way. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, what a load of cack on the backside of Wikipedia. I recommend the liberal use of -->
-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed some of the worst bullshit - maybe there's something that can be salvaged in what's left? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And more. I've removed the Bible section, as every quote consisted of the writer interpreting words like "sorcery" to mean "Pharmakeia" or "pharmacy" - the passages themselves (at least in standard English translations) don't mention Pharmakeia or pharmacy. It was blatant OR. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all of that bible stuff was OR. What seems to have happened is that we have English translations of books of the bible which use the word "sorcery", and we have the Greek word "pharmakeia" sometimes translated to English as "sorcery" - and the writer has deduced from that that the bible books refer to "pharmakeia". That's not just OR, it's bad OR - to justify it, we'd need a source that supports the claim that the original books actually used the word "pharmakeia". Some of them might have done - Revelation was in Greek, I believe - but we can't use a back-translation from the English translation back into Greek as evidence. With that removed, we don't really have anything left than a dictionary definition. Delete or Redirect to Pharmakos. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Zebedee. You are showing your ignorance because those Bible verses were originally written in Greek where the word Pharmakeia was used and later sorcery was substituted for the Greek word in the English Translation. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep on reading what I wrote - we'd need a reliable source that says the word "Pharmakeia" was used in the originals, not just a statement of the English versions with a translation back into Greek added with only a dictionary as a source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and even with a good-enough source, the fact that a word was used in some bible books really doesn't say anything at all - there's still nothing encyclopedic in the article that isn't covered in Pharmakos. The article before pruning was just synthesis based on nothing but the existence of a word. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Zebedee, There already is a reliable source that Pharmakeia was translated into English to Wicthcraft and Sorcery in the Bible and that is the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Bible. 2602:306:C518:6C40:4C9C:AAFC:A7EE:8898 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible quotations in the "Pharmakeia and the Bible" section had no sourcing at all, and the only reference given to Strong's is as a translation of "Pharmakeia" as "Sorcery". If you can find actual support in Strong's that those books actually contain the word "Pharmakeia", then by all means reinstate that content and add that as a source. (But as I say, the mere fact that the word was used in the bible really doesn't make it an encyclopedic topic - but that's for the rest of the discussion to decide) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is an online Strong's Concordance - can you use that to find evidence of the word "Pharmakeia" in, say, Revelation 9:21? (I haven't tried myself - don't have time right now, but maybe you do?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/passage.aspx?q=revelation+9:21&t=kjv http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/pharmakeia.html

The first link has the original Greek and when you click on the Greek word you go to the second link. By the way the Online Strong's is the new revised version and it does not have quite the same definition as the old one and I know why. They are trying to whitewash that pharmakeia means pharmacy and medicines and trying to make it look like it refers to drugs which some people maintain is not the same thing as medicine. They want to make it look like Coca, Marijuana and Opium Poppy are drugs and therefore that is what the Bible is talking about when it says pharmakeia. But Genesis makes it very clear that God gave man all plants bearing seed as food for man so therefore there is nothing wrong with a nice big glass of Marijuana juice or Marijuana seed oil on your salad. Smoking however is a conduit to allow demons to enter the body however. Coca leaves make an excellent tea but chemically derived Cocaine is pharmakeia and there is nothing wrong with consuming opium poppy but chemically derived opiates are pharmakeia. 2602:306:C518:6C40:6C78:AA3E:8EED:274F (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, all you have to do is use those links as proper sources for the bible quotations and put them back in the article if you really want to. In fact, if the article should survive this discussion I'll do it myself, but at the moment it looks like we're heading for deletion and I won't spend time on it that's likely to be wasted. (As for the rest of what you say about the translation, Wikipedia really isn't interested - we can only go with what reliable sources say, not with what anonymous Wikipedia users claim). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zebedee you are the Pot calling the Kettle Black by calling me Anonymous because of an IP address because I am sure your name is not Zebedee so you are actually even more anonymous then I am because I can be tracked down because my IP is displayed but on the other hand it is impossible for you to be tracked down because you use a handle unless of course Wikipedia is willing to divulge your IP address. So you see I am les anonymous then you are. Do you know what hypocrisy means? 2602:306:C518:6C40:104:2C2F:6D19:45D6 (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing hypocritical in what I say - my unsupported claims would be worth no more than yours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pharmakos, although some surprise that one editor adding a self-contained, unsourced chunk of wi-fi-and-aliens to an otherwise bland dictionary definition, one day before the AfD, is enough to poison the well and get silly GIF insults and "kill it with fire". --McGeddon (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, the article without that inclusion still contained, "Magical pharmacia substances or potions often bind someone under a spell by evocation with and without uttered word formulas. Cosmetics, lotions and perfumes were also made by practitioners of pharmaceuticalism and by extension any lab made substance or chemical falls in the realm of pharmakeia or pharmacia." It was originally created by the sock-puppet of a now-site-banned editor. The wifi nonsense didn't help but this was problematic long before yesterday. Stalwart111 08:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that now ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good start. I'd be comfortable with a merge/redirect but I still think this replicates Pharmakos as I first noted. Stalwart111 08:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, after a bit more thought, I agree - I've amended my recommendation above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See Poe's law, particularly the Morgan's adage. No such user (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to violate WP:SYN, WP:V, and half a dozen other things. I'm not convinced this is a thing. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. Etymology can be fun, but it is not generally encyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 3 June 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galway Hockey Club[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Irish hockey league does not appear to be notable Seasider91 (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked on Google pretty hard for a few sources that would help this to meet GNG; I lost one-nil. Fails GNG, sadly. Carrite (talk) 11:52, 9 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Boich[edit]

Request withdrawn

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

Is a former employee of Apple notable enough for a standalone article? After the primary source tags were removed, I had another good search - he seems to average one namedrop a book, in no significant context - enough to show he existed and was a real person, but nothing really in-depth. All sources are blogs or press releases. He doesn't seem to be part of the Template:Original Macintosh Design Team. A merge might be possible, or a redirect to an article on the group of people who signed the original Mac 128k. He might qualify as a "key figure in the history of Apple" (see Template:Apple celeb) but will surely need sources to demonstrate his notability and coverage - something a bit more substantial than one-off throwaway name checks. Mabalu (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he was also a founder of Radius (computer) and was a well-known figure in the valley in the late 80s-early 90s. I can't !vote or expand the article because I knew him back then. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the author of the article. I was unaware of the other articles. I am in favor of merging the articles. As noted, the material around this person is lacking. I have "reached out" to Guy Kawasaki. For him, he just wants to see the item corrected. That is, Mike Boich is the original 'technology evangalist' for Apple Machintosh. As such, you can merge or I can merge. meatclerk (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major figure at Apple--an important firm in an important industry. Sufficient reliable sources meets general notability guideline. A keeper.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BIO doesn't fail and there are a lot of references which are reliable sources. 5.150.92.19 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shyan Selah[edit]

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

According to the WP:N/Music page, this guy may be notable, but since I have to do something with the csd tag I've decided to bounce it here for final decision. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:MUSICBIO. STATic message me! 19:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:18, 2 June 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 CONCENSUS Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CyberBerkut[edit]

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

Not WP:N notable enough to have an article on some fly-by-night hacking team. A lot of the sources fail verification. Львівське (говорити) 07:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information contained in this article is of value and sources on a group of "hacktivists" can be very difficult. The group continues to be active and has taken credit for notable cyber actions recently. Keeping the article as is and requesting updated sources is suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.95.1.4 (talk • contribs)
Delete. There are reliable sources detailing the attacks supposedly carried out by this group, but nothing which describes the group itself in any detail. We shouldn't allow the fact that the group is secretive to lower our standards for sourcing and verifiability. Would not object to a merge of any sourced content to an article detailing information war aspects of the current conflict in Ukraine. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Why would we need to know more about the group itself beyond that its actions (and therefore the group) is the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources? Easily passes WP:GNG with the sources already cited and I'm finding a whole lot more. Also keep in mind the many sources not in English. Just a few that weren't already included in the article: Magyar Hirlap Online, GlobalResearch, Lithuania Tribune, inSerbia, Guardian Liberty Voice... these were in the first couple pages of ghits. This is an easy keep as far as I can see. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for the modicum of coverage, but there seems to be some WP:OR going on here. It doesn't look as though anything will save the Background, Goals and Symbols sections of the article, unless the suppositions there can be tied to reliable sources. Several of the websites used for the news do not appear to meet the reliability requirements, such as the anyone edit pastebin.com, jeffreycarr.blogspot.com and news.softpedia.com (although the article by Oana Lungescu reposted by Eduard Kovacs seems legit). The editors would be better off citing the UPI and The Guardian which had similar articles. --Bejnar (talk)

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Issa[edit]

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

Violates WP:Notability. TheQ Editor (Talk) 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements partnering significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:54, 3 June 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. Not sure how this got out of the regular list/relist cycle, but anyway, consensus is to keep at this time. Go Phightins! 12:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dean-Charles Chapman[edit]

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

IMDB source may not be enough to keep this page up, add more sources JacobiJonesJr (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playing a central figure in the most-viewed cable series and being well-known on the London stage adds up to notoriety. 96.27.37.108 (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same reasons as given by 96.27.37.108. The article not presently having enough sources is reason to improve it, not to delete it, especially since it doesn't contain any contentious material at all. BreakfastJr (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR#1 by merit of Game of Thrones and Billy Elliot. --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references and an image. --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:20, 18 June 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. SpinningSpark 19:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Puliyoor[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources that are not self written or blogs that show proof of notability, source needed for the poetry awards JacobiJonesJr (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Two sources: New Indian Express and IBN. -- GreenC 00:38, 3 June 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. soft delete, given lack of quorum after two relistings. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Goel[edit]

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

Subject does not seem noteworthy, and article seems entirely self-promotion. BigDwiki (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boneyard Yacht Club[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no actual references at all. A search turns up plenty of primary sources but no discussion in secondary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching on just the club name is insufficient, as it is an insider-type joke name and doesn't come up in all coverage of the club or its participation in events. Search on "concrete canoe" and "Illinois" and you get hits like: New York Times "Out of Concrete and Drudgery Come Canoes That Float", Fountain, Henry. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) [New York, N.Y] 24 June 2013: A.11., a full article about the last annual concrete canoe competition which Illinois hosted. Perhaps the article title should be broadened, as the club name is too narrow, and the article seems to be the main article in Wikipedia introducing the bigger topic. Perhaps this article should be expanded/moved to National Concrete Canoe Competition (currently a redlink). I see Concrete canoe#Canadian National Concrete Canoe Competition and I see Christian Brothers University#ASCE National Concrete Canoe Competition. This article, anyhow, is a solid, good start and should be Kept. Expanding/moving/developing related articles should be discussed at its Talk page. --doncram 23:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable Yacht club. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kokab mehdi[edit]

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

Delete No claim of notability is made in the lead. There is no real coverage, much less significant. The article says that Kokab Mehdi already won the award for his beautifull voice in radio it fails to state what award. Fails general notability guidelines and fails WP:ENT. I found one mention of him in a cast listing for "Drama Serial Shahzadi on Ary Tv"., no mention in text. The other hits were for blogs, facebook, and one television programme listing. --Bejnar (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 2 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 03:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa rules[edit]

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

Covered in more depth in Ottawa ankle rules and Ottawa knee rules Mschamberlain (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure why this is a deletion discussion rather than one about redirect vs. merge. Ottawa knee rules is very short and has only one source. Would the best solution here be to merge Ottawa ankle rules and Ottawa knee rules into one article, perhaps at this more comprehensive title Ottawa rules? --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that "the Ottawa rules" exists as a separate concept. The ankle and knee rules seem to be in place and per this history it seems that "the Ottawa rules" came from its usage for ankles alone. The knee article has no history so that doesn't help. I don't see why these should be merged as they could both include more separate history, separate details and (eventually) if one or the other is deprecated or something, it would be a historical footnote and not much more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, keep and make into a disambiguation page since it could refer to either. If there's more history, it could become its own article later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant usage, too disparate from Ottawa ankle rules and Ottawa knee rules. --Bejnar (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no significant usage, then that would be consistent with your supporting this be revised to be a dab page; it doesn't require deleting.
And what about Ottawa foot rules, also covered in this article? You would delete that entirely, or move it to a new article? In a dab page, the foot rules can be treated as an apparently valid topic, just with a red-link. And the material (now without sourcing) could just be copied to the talk page, for possible later help to an editor creating the topic. --do ncr am 12:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but probably it should be converted to a disambiguation page, basically per Ricky81682. It seems it could apply to 3 topics, Ottawa foot rules in addition to ankle and knee roles. If there is no Ottawa foot rules article, that can be listed as a red link. --do ncr am 12:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Florida Collegiate Summer League. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Garden Squeeze[edit]

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

Article about a minor sports teams lacking available sources. Fails WP:ORG. - Mr X 16:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to say keep on this one, as summer collegiate league teams have generally been created and kept without issue in the past. Alex (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but doesn't change whether or not this is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida Collegiate Summer League - A useful redirect to the league, but no evidence of notability as a team. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Bushranger. Quick check of sources found some discussion in a local paper, plus a few references like this one in the West Orange Times, and I am not sure if these are sufficient to meet the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agile Estimation Based on Size[edit]

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

Unsourced essay, doesn't seem to belong as an article, can't be recovered Zeus^u|c 23:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks. The article is obviously sourced, as seen in the references section and the content seems reasonable. But the content is essay-like and a howto for one particular approach to project size estimation in the agile software methodology; it violates WP:NOTHOWTO. Planning poker is a similar kind of article on agile estimation. This article is better suited to Wikibooks, perhaps under the Agile Software Engineering Cheatsheets collection. --Mark viking (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primarily a how-to essay, which isn't appropriate here. (See WP:NOTHOWTO). Agyle (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, out of scope essay, and also agilecruft. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- even for wikibooks, it would really need considerably more context. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 14 June 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. Nominator withdrawn. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Schneider Goes to Washington[edit]

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

~~Non-notable documentary film. Has not been the subject of third-party RS.~~PaintedCarpet (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Changing my vote as nom to Keep based on new sources that confirm notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Ddelete~~ While verifiable, it seems this film has not received the requisite coverage for inclusion. If we do get a article on Jonathan Neil Schneider, it certainly can be mentioned there. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I struck my delete as I found an excellent article about this documentary in Variety and am now convinced that WP:NF is met... even if only just. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, User:MichaelQSchmidt. I'm willing to change my vote as nom to keep; article is sourced just enough to satisfy notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete>~~ - ~~Does not meet the criteria for notability in films~~. Nickmalik (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - willing to change my vote based on coverage and novelty of the film. It still does not meet most of the requisite criteria of notability in films, but it appears to have had some reasonable coverage on the BLOG sites of Variety and the Wall Street Journal (note that neither of these articles appeared in the print editions of these publications, and may not have been editorially reviewed.) Assuming, of course, that these references get included in the article itself. Nickmalik (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Votes for deletion based on mere assertions with no evidence. It was so tempting to just do likewise, and merely contradict. However, it does not take much searching to find evidence to the contrary. Just look at the links. Huffington Post, New Orleans Film Society Wall Street Journal [35], and a host of film sites. Anarchangel (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Huffington Post article I found was written by Jonathan Schneider and thus not a reliable source. Neither Rotten Tomatoes nor Metacric show any reviews for this movie. One of the requirements of WP:NF is "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release," and on that basis, then the film might be a weak keep. But I cannot find any reliable sources that verify the movie's inclusion at the New Orleans Film Festival; the lsting at the festival's website is a simple synopsis. PaintedCarpet (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To User:Anarchangel, the film's existence is not in question. And while inclusion on either Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are not Wikipedia inclusion requisites for films, the criteria do call for sources to be independent, reliable, and that they offer more than listings in film databases. The Wal Street Journal is excellent. Schneider's Huffington Post article can certainly confirm facts within the film article under WP:SELFPUB, but does not contribute toward notability. And unlike User:PaintedCarpet I find the New Orleans Film Society listing the documentary as having screened suitable enough as it is supported by The Times-Picayune , but simply screening someplace does not constitute notability if lacking significant coverage. The Movie Review Query Engine lists one review from a site calling itself the Political Film Society, but I cannot determine that site's reliability. I would like to support the film's inclusion, but please read WP:NF and WP:GNG and WP:RS. ~~There simply is not enough actual coverage.~~ I just found THIS as a superb article speaking about the film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, MQS. Bless you. Lee Iacocca also wonders '"Where is our democracy heading?" "Aren't there any rules anymore?"', and says '"to all my friends in the media, if you want to know what Lee Iacocca thinks is wrong with politics, watch "Mr. Schneider Goes to Washington."', at his Blog But he would only count as an expert on Unsafe At Any Speed, I guess. Anarchangel (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bunscoil an Iúir[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for such schools, absent unusual non-local RS coverage not present here. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Google returns numerous local/listing mentions but nothing of substance. House of Lords reference in the article is a passing mention and does nothing to establish notability. Redirect to "Education" section of Newry article. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Epeefleche's arguments; clear non-notability. Quis separabit? 20:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - I think there probably is a tincture of notability in the use of Gaelige as the learning/teaching medium. But it might be best incorporated in the Newry#Education section which is currently just a list. Atlas-maker (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added a short para and ref which should probably be copied to Newry if the result is delete.Atlas-maker (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even to me, and I have a broad appetite for inclusion of information in articles that are in fact notable, that factoid ("part of a research project" -- not an act of the school itself) seems somewhat trivial, and therefore not worthy of inclusion (in either article). Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the teaching in the school is not an act of the school itself? Really? Atlas-maker (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article appear to be about the study, and the study in turn appears to be about a proposition that is not limited to the school. IMHO.Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that its not solely about the school. But the school is a significant part of it. It is a report by a government agency, and names the school in the article title. Thats pretty significant, I would have thought. Atlas-maker (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it is something that is more appropriate as a mention (though not an article) in Irish language in Northern Ireland and/or Status of the Irish language. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The study seems to have been about bilinguality in general, not the Irish language specifically. So it could just as easily apply a scots gaelic or welsh language school, or probably to one of the many French or German schools outside France/Germany. Or Belgian schools (where the teach in flemish/english or french/english depending on where the school is located. Atlas-maker (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. It sounds quite ordinary.--PatrickGuinness (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete Why pick on this school? We have numerous other Primary schools listed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_schools_in_Northern_Ireland.

What is apparently OK with the likes of Elmgrove Primary School that is not also OK with Bunscoil an Iúir? Why have I a feeling that it is the Gaelic language that is the problem for some people? Lets have one rule for all schools...delete them all, keep them all, or merged them to an appropriate locality article. The school is notable in that it was the first Gaelic medium cross-community primary school set up in Ireland. It waited 11 years before the Government of Northern Ireland afforded it Grant Aid. Its long struggle for recognition has been the subject of numerous articles in the regional and local press and TV and radio. Eog1916 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eog. As to your feeling that Gaelic primary schools are being focused on especially, a look at the primary school AfDs shows that not to be the case. As to your pointing to the fact that there are other Gaelic primary school articles, that only suggests to me that there will be more such AfDs. There is a common outcome, as alluded to above. See wp:outcomes; it is only an essay, but it is one that seems to have significant buy-in by the community that !votes at AfDs, at least as to the fact that primary and elementary schools should not have stand-alone articles, unless there is a clear sourced claim to notability. The results at AfDs seem to be overwhelmingly that primary schools with run-of-the-mill coverage that all such schools would receive are not kept at AfD -- look yourself, at the AfDs I linked to above. Look even at the current ongoing such AfDs other than this one; 21 of the 22 !votes at the primary and elementary school AfDs are something other than keep. BTW, the leaning is the opposite with high schools and above--they are generally kept. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Epeefleche and I disagree on the notability or otherwise of this particular school, I have to say that I support his point on outcomes 100%. Generally, primaries anywhere in the U.K., or Ireland for that matter, are non-notable. And only if there is significant coverage in mainstream references should that change on an individual basis. The one thing that makes this school slightly notable is its bilingually. But it needs more coverage of this to pass the threshold. WRT the list of primaries, only 1 school amongst the "A"'s has its own article. All the others are redirects to their locality article. Many as a result of AfDs I assume. And the one that has its own article already has a ((merge-school)) template at the top indicating that it is a prime candidate for a merge/delete. No one is picking on this school. Atlas-maker (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what Atlas said, I took a look at the list. Atlas is correct about the "A's." The rest of the list does reflect a surprisingly (to me) high number of non-notable primary schools. Prompted by Eog's comment, I've reviewed a few, and sent three to AfD at this point, but review of others for notability would be appropriate (as, I believe, with all primary schools). Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 11 June 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. A valiant effort, but consensus is that the subject does not meet the guidelines.Mojo Hand (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Bamford (stunt coordinator)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. A stuntman and coordinator, but not in the same league as Yakima Canutt. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG or NACTOR.Mdtemp (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following was initially posted in the wrong place:

James Bamford has worked as a Stunt Performer, Stunt Co-ordinator or Fight Co-ordinator on a number of high profile productions (Previously The X-Files, Stargate Atlantis and Stargate Universe and currently on Arrow). He has won several awards including the Leo Award for Best Stunt Co-ordination for Halo: Forward Unto Dawn and TOIFA for Ek Tha Tiger. <ref>http://www.stuntscanada.com/jamesbamford/</ref>.

James has a large fan base, with a fansite <ref>http://bambamfans.wordpress.com</ref> and over seven thousand followers on Twitter <ref>https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesBamford</ref>. For these reasons I don't believe the James Bamford article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR or should be deleted.

The book reference cited derives content from Wikipedia and is not a credible source <ref>https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22James+Bamford+(stunt+coordinator)%22</ref>

The James Bamford (Stunt co-ordinator) article needs updated content on his professional career and awards. Imwebgurl (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC) imwebgurl[reply]

GNG & NACTOR notability guidelines

The guidelines say "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability".

In addition to the awards mentioned previously (Leo Award for Best Stunt Co-ordination for Halo: Forward Unto Dawn and TOIFA Times of India Film Award for Ek Tha Tiger. ^[1]), there are a considerable number of interviews of James Bamford online, a list of these can be found on his fansite ^[2]. His work as Stunt Co-ordinator/Fight Co-ordinator on Arrow has received attention in entertainment media in the US in particular.

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

James Bamford has worked as a Stunt Performer, Stunt Co-ordinator or Fight Co-ordinator on a number of high profile productions (Previously The X-Files, Stargate Atlantis, Stargate Universe, The Butterfly Effect, Halo:Forward Unto Dawn and currently on Arrow).

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

James Bamford has a fansite ^[3] and over 7800 followers on Twitter ^[4] which for a member of crew is large.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

James Bamford is also the President of Stunts Canada, a professional organisation of Canadian stunt performers ^[5].

James Bamford is listed on the official CW Arrow social directory as a representative of the show^[6].

I believe the James Bamford Wikipedia page meets the criteria for its own article. Please do no delete. I believe the article just needs more content using the secondary sources available online, which I can add. Thank-you for moving the previous post.

Imwebgurl (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a new editor you might want to become familiar with Wikipedia policies such as WP:GNG and WP:RS. None of the sources you mentioned show significant coverage of him in reliable independent sources. The number of twitter followers is irrelevant (see WP:GOOGLEHITS). Doing stunts for a show is not usually considered the same as having "a significant role". Papaursa (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage in reliable sources that's required to meet WP:GNG. I also don't see that he meets WP:NACTOR. Papaursa (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet GNG. 109.201.154.178 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 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. English sources are unlikely to be found. There is a chance however that Indonesian sources exist. If this is the case, the article can be recreated basen on thos sources. For the time being, I delete it.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inggrid Tiar[edit]

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

Clearly autobiographical with no references given. DJAMP4444 (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Why go to AFD and not use BLPProd though? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Indonesian Wikipedia article created a week ago is no better sourced, and multiple searches are turning up nothing that would demonstrate the subject's notability. AllyD (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - The lack of sources at the Indonesian Wikipedia article and a Google search lead me to conclude that this person is simply not notable.- Mr X 13:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Anaconda Project[edit]

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

There's no evidence this book was every published (the last one was in 2003) and there's independent RS showing interest in the book. Nowhere near notable enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. Being serialized online at the publisher's website but that's not supporting the cause. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable here, just a storage room full of garbage.Jacona (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass our book notability guidelines. I think it's telling that the publisher apparently didn't release a physical book of it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:25, 11 June 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. Jinian (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Java Posse[edit]

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

The subject is not notable even with current sources. No significant coverage by any mainstream sources such as cnn or the Wall Street journal. Recommend deletion as article is written more as a promotion for the podcast. --Hvcgvngc (talk) 18:06, 2 June 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 June 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not notable per nom --Jgufhvjb (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- please note that the editors of this article are from the podcast itself (account CarlQuinn is very similar to the name of the host of the show Carl Quinn). May actually qualify for speedy deletion.

--Jgufhvjb (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not notable. --BeerBelly82 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, There's some sourcing out there: [36], p82-4; [37]; [38], but most of it is behind paywalls. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources don't make this article notable. Showing up in a lIst of podcasts does not make it notable. --BeerBelly82 (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just not seeing the sourcing necessary to pass WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:08, 15 June 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.