The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MelanieN (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryn Weaver[edit]

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

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

No evidence of any significant notability. Looks like a vanity article. No music in any acknowledged national chart. All references relatively trivial Fails WP:MUS  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete-even the filmography is a bit well brief (a appearance on a major show is a great start, but too soon still) Wgolf (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator. IPadPerson (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough notability to meet WP:MUSICBIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator with no other dissenting opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Rosalen[edit]

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

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

Notability concerns and no citations. giso6150 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have copied over the citations and external links from the ptWP. I think they make the notability clear. It is a little rash to decide an enWP article is unreferenceable without at least checking the corresponding article in the language of the subject. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but with improvements or PNJCS. Thank you, @DGG:, for copying those citations and links. I agree that it would be rash to claim that this article is unreferenceable—in fact, I found this myself. I did read both versions of the article and I looked at the edit history for each. This article has been orphaned in more ways than one, however, and I wanted some discussion about whether or not the subject was, in fact, ”…regarded as an important figure … widely cited by peers or successors … known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, etc.” WP:ARTIST. Neither the ptWP or enWP article has had significant work done in the past 4–5 years and notability can change. —giso6150 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Revere Massachusetts Tornado[edit]

2014 Revere Massachusetts Tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This tornado is a non-notable WP:EVENT. While it was somewhat outside the normal geographic range, this tornado was a rather routine occurrence. It caused no fatalities and only a handful of injuries, and damage was not all that substantial as tornadoes go. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – The first recorded tornado in a county is only notable enough for mention in the summary in its entry on List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2015. The rest of it is routine and also could easily be covered in that same summary. United States Man (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A minor local event without any lasting significance whatsoever; fails WP:GEOSCOPE. I'm a Massachusetts editor who reads the Boston Globe, and I have family in Revere, and I'd long since forgotten about this. Ravenswing 05:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Timmons[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced (it was actually attempting to get away with some Facebook sourcing, until I yanked that) WP:BLP of a person notable only for serving on a county-level council, which is not a role that satisfies WP:NPOL. While admittedly a few of his colleagues on South Dublin County Council do have Wikipedia articles, those few all have some other claim of notability, such as having previously been an Olympic athlete or a Teachta Dála — and that covers a grand total of four members on a council of 40. Besides this guy, the other 35 members of the council, the ones for whom the council itself is the crux of their notability as it is here, do not have Wikipedia articles. Also dead-cert WP:COI, if you compare the creator's username (User:Cllrclondalkin) to the name of the district that the topic is "cllr" for. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being a member of the County Council is not sufficient to meet WP:POLITICIAN unless they have received significant coverage. The only coverage I can find is of him calling for things to happen, or proposing motions, not any actual significant coverage of him, so I cannot see how the article can pass the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Davewild. Apparent autobio of an otherwise non-notable local politician. --Finngall ^talk 22:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not received significant coverage per WP:GNG. A standard county councillor who is not notable. Snappy (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like run of the mill coverage about a local politician but does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Mkdw^talk 19:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sour Keys[edit]

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

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

This product, Sour Keys, does not present to meet relevant guidelines for notability and appears to be lacking substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. Deletion was proposed on March 7, 2015 and later contested by 173.35.255.129. Unsourced article. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was able to confirm that this product exists, but that's all. Not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (Non-admin closure). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Prather[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NCOLLATH (the honorable mention All-American or first-team All-SEC aren't mentioned in Template:Men's college basketball award navbox). Not enough individual coverage for WP:GNG. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. In addition to "Casey Prather’s star turn a boon for Florida" NBCSports.com already in the article, I have found "Florida's Prather steps in, steps up" ESPN.com, "Aging gracefully, Casey Prather leads Florida to another big win" SI.com, "Casey Prather trying to stick with Phoenix Suns" azcentral.com, "Profile: Casey Prather" gainesville.com.—Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree he meets GNG, mostly gained during his college career (but notability is not temporary). In addition to those articles posted by Bagumba, here are some others: "Ex-Michigan recruit Casey Prather becomes Wolverines' rival with Florida" Detroit Free Press, "Jackson, Tenn., product Casey Prather plays crucial role as Florida pursues national title" Memphis Commercial Appeal, "Casey Prather's promise now talent for Florida" Tampa Bay Times. Also, as a star player on a high-profile team his injury comings and goings received headline articles (as opposed to one-line transaction reports) on national sports sites like ESPN.com, NBCSports.com and FOXSports.com. I should point out that I was the article's creator - and that I should have done a better job sourcing the article when I wrote it. Rikster2 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination Withdrawn: Thanks, it looks like I must've misspelled the name or something when searching for further sources. I've withdrawn the nomination, although additional non-transactional coverage, such as the examples above, should be added to the article. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 22:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Play, New Jersey[edit]

Fair Play, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Yet another GNIS-hallucinated "community". The article cites several maps, but none of them actually uses this place name. In fact the location given is just a T intersection in the middle of nowhere in particular. The only "history" given is surmised from one of the maps. Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the article currently stands, the multiple sources provided scrape by the standard to establish notability per WP:GEOLAND. As created, with a single source from GNIS, I would have agreed that the article shouldn't exist on a standalone basis, though I would ask why you're not arguing for a redirect as I would have (and did) under those circumstances. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I do not consider GNIS a sufficient demonstration that the spot was occupied by a town/hamlet/whatever at any time, especially as (so far) all the primary sources presented (which is all the sourcing we have) do not name the place (with the exception of the legislative report, which does not say what kind of place Fair Play is). If I eliminated the primary sources the two location catalogues would be all that was left. Mangoe (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep what Alansohn said. Famartin (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep what Famartin said about Alansohn. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep what Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) said about Famartin said about Alansohn. –Davey2010^Talk 04:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ha, I'm gonna break the pattern, but yes I concur with the above. There are reliable sources provided to establish some notability. Tinton5 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - THIS seems to be adequate, as cited in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yarborough_poker[edit]

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

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

Non-existent game just made up one day. The are only 49 mentions online and all merely mentions online relate to this article or wikicommons. References in article have nothing to do with made-up game, but rather just poker games in general. 2005 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WizardofOdds does give probabilities for "ten card stud", which this article uses, but nobody's heard of that either. (Plus, they don't accept royal flushes in yarborough poker?) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gordon (swimmer)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable college swimmer. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). FYI, there is no specific notability guideline for swimmers, but they often qualify under WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS, but the subject does not, having never competed in any senior international swimming event. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:NCOLLATH, the page should be deleted. The individual hasn't really accomplished anything passed the collegiate realm. As Dirtlawyer said, at a minimum, he should compete at a senior international swimming event. I would go further in that the individual should at least win a medal, but that's my own opinion. Philipmj24 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Official Album Streaming Chart[edit]

Official Album Streaming Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:GNG concerns. The only reference in the article that even mentions the chart is a primary source, with the rest being about streaming singles. If I do a quick Google search, I can only find one article (this one) that is about the albums streaming chart specifically, with most of the rest (e.g. here, here, here and here) being more about streams being incorporated into the main album chart. The equivalent singles streaming chart may well be notable, but notability is not inherited. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also these [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.10.254 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary sources. We need third-party ones (i.e. not published by OCC themselves) to establish notability. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A mention in Official Charts Company may suffice, but that's about it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Yesson[edit]

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

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. His work may have been played once on the BBC, which has several stations and covers a huge volume of new artists, but I can find no evidence that it was ever placed in rotation. The one secondary source given is a brief mention of his per-tweet mentions service in the Herald. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What about the fact he has celebrity accounts on many social media accounts? ie: facebook verified [4] and Whosay [5] could these sources be used in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesson20 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those aren't considered WP:Reliable sources to support WP:Notability, since anyone can create a verified account on social media. That might prove that they exist, but it doesn't prove that they're notable. Has Yesson ever been interviewed in a notable magazine, or has his work ever been in the charts? Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NMUSIC. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. The only reference which is not a directory listing or playlist is a newspaper article that only mentions him in passing, and in a rather dismissive way that doesn't really pertain to his main line of work. ubiquity (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smart (healthcare administrator)[edit]

Tim Smart (healthcare administrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Chief Executive of a major London university hospital Mirrortoamermaid (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 14th highest paid NHS manager in the UK [6]86.140.3.24 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sock puppet of Mirrortoamermaid.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable hospital bureaucrat. Nom or closer, please also include/treat similarly Caroline Shaw (healthcare administrator) ("...the 33rd highest paid manager in the NHS"!). Pax 07:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Shaw was appointed a CBE in the 2013 New Year Honours for services to the NHS. She was the first-ever NHS winner of a First Women Award in 2010 in recognition of her work in improving services for cancer patients. Shaw was chosen as Patron for the 'Network National' for UK business women in 2009. She received the North West Inspiring Woman of the Year award in 2007. Shaw received Crain's Manchester Businesses Businesswoman of the Year award in 2009.[7][8]86.161.191.177 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet of Mirrortoamermaid.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Winning a de facto "Employee of the Year" award doesn't make you notable. If the award isn't notable, then neither does winning it establish notability. Pax 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a CBE, Caroline Shaw quite clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. We have always held that the CBE satisfies that. Completely different case and not at all relevant to this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the British Empire "...is the most junior and most populous order of chivalry..." CBE is the third category down within it - in other words, it's one of the lesser designations given to the people they're not going to "knight". (English civil-service is like a special-needs camp where everybody gets a ribbon.) Pax 22:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you quite clearly have no real understanding of the British honours system (as your last sentence clearly illustrates). Each rank of an order is lower than the equivalent rank of a higher order, but higher than the next rank down in a higher order. The British system does not rank all recipients of a higher order above all recipients of a lower order - it doesn't work like that. In addition, it is the only order that can be awarded to anyone and not just to specific categories of people (which is the case with the Order of the Bath, Order of St Michael and St George and Royal Victorian Order). Although the Order of the British Empire is the most junior order, the CBE is the highest of its ranks below knighthood (and the highest rank below knighthood for which most people are eligible), outranking the LVO (which belongs to a higher order, but is a lower rank), and only a few dozen are awarded every year. Many OBEs and MBEs are awarded, but not CBEs. We have consistently held in AfDs that the CBE (but not the OBE or MBE) is indeed a notable award under WP:ANYBIO #1. And many recipients of the CBE do in fact go on to be knighted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they're throwing knighthoods out like candy at a parade these days (a sort of grade inflation for awards), I think we ought not be reflexively considering CBEs to be that notability-granting. I mean, if these not-quite-knights were actually bearing arms (i.e., all that hoary days of chivalry and jousting tournaments business), WP:Soldier would be considerably more strict on who makes the cut.05:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Necrothesp is right. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep High profile public sector administratorOldjoe2 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've struck the vote as Oldjoe2 has admitted that he and Mirrortoamermaid are the same person. I'm leaving in Mirrortoamermaid's keep vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Based on a report at WP:SPI, I asked the closing non-admin to reopen this as the struck votes by socks of the author of the article may have influenced his decision to close this as keep. I express no opinion as to whether the article should be kept or deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. I am somewhat sympathetic towards articles on those holding influential managerial positions within the establishment, even if their biographies lack human interest. However, the only Tim Smart I could find is the British Ambassador to Madagascar. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PileInspect[edit]

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

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

A rather obscure research project with no attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This does not seem to me to be encyclopaedic material. If there is an article on pile testing, or whatever, it could and should reference the page given which describes the aims and design of this specific project. Of course, if this project turned out to be a crucial step in the development of better foundations it would be notable. Imaginatorium (talk)

• Dear Roger and Imaginatorium, thanks for your comments on Wikipedia page 'PileInspect'. We have clear and detailed design of an integrated system, both on hardware development and signal processing algorithms. We are now in preparation of patent application and academic publications some of which have been accepted and will be presented soon. Due to patents issue, please excuse us from releasing the details temporarily. It can also be expected that PileInspect system's novel technologies will be recognized and sourced in the near future. We hope this article will not be simply deleted because it is just lack of verifiability temporarily. We will improve and enrich this article with solid materials on the techniques achieved from the PileInspect project as soon as possible. The recent revisions on this article include:

1. Added 'See also' of 2 nearly related techniques in pile integrity testing. In the 'Objective', we explained the differences between our system with these 2 traditional methods;
2. Added the category of this article to 'Geotechnical Engineering'.Zhenghaitao (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. @Zhenghaitao: I guess you are a new editor here. You should learn a bit about Wikipedia policies, among which WP:N (a subject is covered only if it was covered by reliable, secondary sources); WP:CRYSTAL (if something is not notable or verifiable yet, we have no business in guessing whether it will be later); and also a bit of WP:COI (if you have a close connection with the subject it is best to refrain from editing it). Tigraan (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Tigrann. I will improve the article by adding more reliable, third-party sources. I wish the page can be left in Wikipedia by Tagging not just simply deletion. Zhenghaitao (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• On User_talk:Coren you said: "We are creating the Wikipedia page which is a project task." Are you saying that your project, your manager, or someone else has told you to make a Wikipedia page? If so the page should obviously be deleted immediately. You could try to explain to whoever it is that this is not how Wikipedia works. Otherwise there is no obvious reason you should "need" to have this page on WP: you can create the article somewhere else, and host it on your project website, blog, or whatever. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Brooks (singer)[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC, fails criteria one as most of the sources are primary. Mdann52 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 13:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sources in the article aren't perfect and I can't find any shred of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Florescu[edit]

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

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

Classic vanity page. Let's check through the online sources presented.

• Cruft
• No mention of John Florescu
• Florescu's own company
• Florescu Foundation
• No mention of Florescu
• Puff piece about his marriage
• Cruft
• Dead link
• IMDb cruft (no mention of Florescu, either)
• Press release hosted on Florescu's own website
• Cruft
• ?
• ?
• Editorial written by Florescu

In sum: there are scattered mentions here and there, as can be expected for the son of a famous father who's had a fairly successful career himself. But there's nothing approaching the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" standard set by WP:BASIC, and so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would tentatively agree with the nominator's analysis of the sources in the article, and after doing some homework I couldn't find anything more relevant. It seems that the subject's father is far more notable, or at least there is more material about him. The bio does read like a vanity piece, and I suspect there is some COI going on there, but I don't see how the material there can sustain the notion that there is significant coverage of Mr. Florescu. Long and distinguished career for sure, but very little about it in reliable sources. The only thing I initially worried about was that we could be missing some sources in Romanian, but since the subject's career has largely progressed in the United States as far as I can see, it's unlikely that he would be more notable there than here. There are also some claims regarding his involvement in politics that I could not source. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Arcsoft. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcsoft TotalMedia Theatre[edit]

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

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

Non-notable discontinued product. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Arcsoft. Software article of unclear notability. Sourcing shows it exists, but is insufficient to establish notability independent of the company, so a redirect to the authoring company is reasonable.Dialectric (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "merge + redirect" (or only the latter) solution suggested by Dialectric would be fine from my POV. –20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian animated television series[edit]

List of Canadian animated television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The page has existed since 2012 and there's almost nothing here. Category:Canadian animated television series does a better job. Fuddle (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:CLN does not require that a category and a list always coexist for the same grouping of topics — there are certainly circumstances where we should rightly have both, but I don't see this as one of them. The "list" is just a poorly maintained and extremely minimal selection that should be hundreds of entries larger than it is, and the category is not diffused into the array of subcategories that it would take to make the list useful as an alternate method of navigation. So this doesn't fall into the set of situations where a category and a list are both needed; it falls into the set where the list is just "because we can" duplication that has absolutely no value whatsoever. And for added bonus, I can't find any indication that any other country has its own standalone "List of (Country) animated television series" — everything else in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Lists of animated television series is a list by year, by decade or by method of animation, and this is the only one by country. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It provides more info than the category. No valid reasons for deletion have been offered. Being incomplete and the fact that there are no other country lists don't qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Canadian animated television series. Also has significant potential for expansion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Onel5969 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth-El (Great Neck, New York)[edit]

Temple Beth-El (Great Neck, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator as per AfD guidelines. Onel5969 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG. See not only the RS refs in the article itself. But also those here, here, here, and here. So much coverage, I would not be surprised if this were to close as a snow keep.

I also note this nom is attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the top-listed 5 articles nominated by him, today, here. Epeefleche (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche - Until Arxiloxos added additional citations to several of the articles, all 5 had no more than a single external reference (including this article, or in one case, two brief mentions), which clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Not sure what you're insinuating by your above comment, but it clearly does not adhere to WP:AGF. This came about as a result of another editor who had an article which could only reference the synagogue's own webpage (it had several other references, but none which spoke to the synagogue itself), who has been declined several times by different editors at AfC. To defend his article's lack of references, he mentioned 6 other synagogues, which I took a look at. Due to the dearth of references on 5 of those articles, since they clearly did not meet WP:GNG, I nominated them for deletion. I didn't nominate the 6th (Beth Sholom Congregation (Frederick, Maryland)), since that clearly did meet GNG.Onel5969 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith. I assume simply that today you in good faith have nominated for deletion five articles in a row on synagogues, which meet GNG.

By your comment, I assume that in your deciding whether to assert that an article fails to meet GNG, you only looked at the refs in the article itself? And did not independently google for refs that were not in the article, but that did in fact satisfy GNG? Is my understanding correct? Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by your comment, it would appear that you weren't AGF. You're also incorrect that I didn't check references. Regarding this article, for instance, a google search revealed a FB page, the org's website, the Wikipedia entry, a mention on foursquare.com, a mention on greatschools.org, several mentions to Cosmopolitan Caterers (which apparently is the caterer of the Synagogue), a listing on nonprofitfacts.com, a few wedding announcements, a listing on wow.com, a blank entry on seathound.com, a listing on www.longislandexchange.com, a map on maven.co.il, a yelp listing, a mirror listing on digplanet, a legal complaint being reinstated against the synagogue, and two more business listings. None of which would show GNG. That's the first two pages in their entirety on Bing. Similar results were for the other articles as well. So, by your comments, I assume you are again attempting to insinuate something. Regardless, have a nice day. Onel5969 (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What User talk:Onel5969 is that the sole in-line reference in the article at the time he posted it to AFD was a book about Great Neck published by Rutgers University Press. This, and the other synagogues in the mass deletion attempt, are not hard to source. A tag pointing out the need for sources would have been appropriate, rushing to AFD is, well, hard to understand in this case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969-You clearly did not do an adequate search on the diffs I posted above. Just the Gnews diff alone shows many RS sources supporting GNG. Plus, you don't understand what AgF stands for. It does not mean "assume the rules were followed" or "assume competence in editing". It does not mean that editors cannot criticize your actions. When you nominate 5 articles in a row for AfD, and they attract 2 dozen Keep !votes, zero Delete !votes, and Snow closes. Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you clearly do not understand what AGF means, nor the Wikipedia pillar of civility, as evidenced once again by your personal attack in this latest post. I suggest you re-read both of those, since you have failed to abide by them in discussion. Criticism is one thing, accusation and insinuation something entirely different. As is repeated mis-statements. And with that, as in keeping with tenets of civility, I will leave this discussion. Onel5969 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded to.

But I should add ... you might bolster the assumption of good faith by withdrawing your remaining, not-yet-SNOW-closed, nominations ... all of which have attracted unanimous "Keep" disagreement with your assertion of non-notability. I am surprised that you haven't ... in good faith ... done so.

The only benefit of these remaining open at this point is that more editors vote Keep, confirming that contrary to your nomination assertions sufficient GNG coverage did in fact exist. And perhaps impelling you to do better wp:before searches before your next nomination. And, I suppose, more editors may join those who have already said as much to you in these five AfDs.

Another sign of good faith on your part would be for you to say: "Yes, I hear what a number of editors have said, understand that my nominations require a more careful wp:before search, and have taken that on board and it will inform my future nominations." Have yet to hear that from you. Perhaps it is too much to ask, because you will feel a loss of face. But I hope your future nominations comport with such a view. Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the reliable and verifiable sources already in the article, as well as those added above by EF, which establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep long standing, well-sourced, well-edited that conspicuously meets WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - (Closing somewhat early as alot of sources have been added to the article, now Passes GNG with flying colours) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth-El (San Antonio)[edit]

Temple Beth-El (San Antonio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Many sources exist, and they reflect that this is a large, historic, and important congregation, led by a series of influential rabbis who have played a substantial role in political and social issues in Texas. I have added some content and sources to the article. -Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; significant coverage exists; more than enough to satisfy GNG. Arxiloxo's additions suffice, but a longer article could be written. Kuru (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep. Meets GNG. Per the above.

I note this nom is also attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the 5-top-listed articles nominated by him, today, here. Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche - Until Arxiloxos added additional citations to several of the articles, all 5 had no more than a single external reference (including this article, or in one case, two brief mentions), which clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Not sure what you're insinuating by your above comment, but it clearly does not adhere to WP:AGF. This came about as a result of another editor who had an article which could only reference the synagogue's own webpage (it had several other references, but none which spoke to the synagogue itself), who has been declined several times by different editors at AfC. To defend his article's lack of references, he mentioned 6 other synagogues, which I took a look at. Due to the dearth of references on 5 of those articles, since they clearly did not meet WP:GNG, I nominated them for deletion. I didn't nominate the 6th (Beth Sholom Congregation (Frederick, Maryland)), since that clearly did meet GNG.Onel5969 (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By your comment, I assume that in your deciding whether to assert that an article fails to meet GNG, you only looked at the refs in the article itself? And did not independently google for refs that were not in the article, but that did in fact satisfy GNG? Is my understanding correct? Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reliable and verifiable sources in the article pass the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Onel5969 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth El (Madison, Wisconsin)[edit]

Temple Beth El (Madison, Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator, per AfD guidelines Onel5969 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly meets GNG. Per those RS refs now in the article. As well as the various others I didn't even bother to put in ... as we already have quite enough to satisfy GNG.

I note this nom is also attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the 5-top-listed articles nominated by him, today, here. (I'm commenting on similar AfD nominations today by nom that suffer from the same malady in the nomination; I'm not saying that nom acted in bad faith - just that he is seeking today to delete five synagogue articles on the same unwarranted basis ... perhaps he didn't carefully and exhaustively perform google, and gnews, and gbooks searches). Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a sizeable and influential congregation with an important rabbi in its history. Notability was apparent from basic searches, and Epeefleche has now added multiple sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep, as per User:Arxiloxos, User:Epeefleche.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the above reasons. Temple Beth El is one of the important, influential congregations in Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Epeefleche and the rest. To @Onel5969: What's up doc? You should avoid nominating mass deletions, that look more like "massacres" without first trying to arrive at some WP:CONSENSUS and not laying the foundations for a misguided WP:BATTLEGROUND environment. You need to read up on WP:SPIDERMAN ASAP, and cool it! In future feel out the waters by consulting some WP:EXPERT editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM before going on a rampage of nominations like this that is not a formula for WP:CIVIL. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @IZAK: - And you sir, should read up on AGF. 5 nominations of articles which had virtually no independent citations prior to their nominations is hardly a "massacre". The WP:BATTLEGROUND was supplied by inaccurate and inflammatory comments by Epeefleche. The articles clearly failed GNG when nominated. Brief internet searches did not provide any substantive support. And so, following the procedure as set down in XfD, they were nominated. You should really understand what civility is about. But I'll just take it for granted that you're having a really bad day. Take it easy. Onel5969 (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onel5969: Hi there again! I am really having a wonderful day and evening, hope you are too! One should never "shoot first and ask questions later" when trying to COLLABORATIVELY write encyclopedia articles, and if called out for that, then avoid "crying wolf" because you have missed the point that as has now been proven to you, such articles can and are improvable if you go about it the right way and avoid scaring the heck out of editors that you are on a rampage by lunging into mass nominations of articles for deletion. You could have moved a lot slower and started with one article and asked for input at WP:TALKJUDAISM since you obviously do not know much about this subject you dove into. If I for example wanted to opine about neurosurgery or astrophysics subjects that I know that I know next to nothing about, I would not run in and nominate for deletion some of their related articles because by now as experienced WP editors, articles are NOT born fully-formed and perfect but evolve and grow. Many times they are just a ((stub)) for years til someone comes along and has the time to improve them. That is why you should read up on and internalize the meaning of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE and really try taking WP:COMPETENCE and WP:EXPERT very seriously. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969. You apparently haven't read or taken to heart what I've written to you here and in this discussion and in the other AfDs. Or perhaps you're confused by what the requirements are. First, I've made no inaccurate comments.

Second, you say "The articles clearly failed GNG when nominated." That's plainly false. You seem to suffer from a misapprehension that an article fails to meet GNG if the GNG refs are not in the article. That's simply incorrect. As long as the requisite RS sources exist, the article meets GNG whether or not the sources are reflected as refs in the article. Please take a moment to understand this. You are required as a nom, under wp:before, to understand and act in accordance with the wp:before rule that "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."

Third, as a nom, you have an obligation under wp:before to search for additional sources. And "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." The RS refs reflecting that these synagogues you nominated for deletion did in fact meet GNG (the opposite of your assertion in your nominations) were all discoverable by performing google searches. Yet you, by your own admission, stopped short in your google searches after 2 or 3 pages. That's not appropriate. Had you performed the searches as you were required to perform them, you would have seen that the appropriate RS sources existed, and that the articles met GNG, and would not have incorrectly asserted otherwise and wasted the time of other editors with (good faith, no doubt) erroneous assertions and improper AFD nominations. That you did this with five articles in a row is a sign that you should take another look at you approach, and carefully understand WP:BEFORE, prior to making further nominations.

Finally, when as here you see 2 dozen !votes to Keep the articles you nominated for deletion, and zero !votes supporting your nominations, and your nominations are being SNOW-closed after a day or two as not having a snowball's chance in hell of being agreed with, it may be a good time to reconsider your practices. Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche - Simply because you say something occurred the way you say it did, doesn't mean that's what happened. As was carefully explained to you, I followed the EXACT procedure as put down in AfD, and did not find the references. In the same criteria you quote above, you conveniently leave out the end of that criteria: "Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Which is exactly what I did. You feel that the search was not exhaustive enough. Fine. You have a right to your opinion. You do not have the right to make accusatory statements based on that opinion. If you truly were a proponent of AGF, you would not then make (and continue to make even after it was explained to you) the incorrect and accusatory statement, "... he is seeking today to delete five synagogue articles on the same unwarranted basis ...". It was not unwarranted, and your incorrect assertion that it was is uncalled for. As per WP:UNCIVIL, I attempted to open a discourse with you, and you continue to put forth your personal attacks. These personal attacks have encouraged others to also engage in personal attacks. You may need to re-read the policy on civility.Onel5969 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at this article as it stood at the time User talk:Onel5969 posted it to AFD as part of an attempted group deletion of articles about American synagogues. While it is true that this article at that time entirely lacked sources, it contained conspicuous indications of probable notability, including a blue-linked rabbi. Rushing to AFD was clearly uncollegial and inappropriate. I suggest that User talk:Onel5969 might do better to admit that he was wrong and apologize; arguing aggressively with editors who called him on so very odd a move as a mass-deletion of long-standing synagogue pages, is piing inappropriate behavior atop an exceedingly odd mass deletion. Kudos to User:Epeefleche & User:Arxiloxos for sourcing this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Onel5969 - You failed to follow wp:before. First, you have repeatedly asserted, even after it was pointed out to you that it was flatly wrong, that the "articles clearly failed GNG when nominated." Obviously, if you have read and understand wp:before, you know the opposite is true.

Second, you failed to do a proper wp:before search. Otherwise, all 5 of these articles would not have been nominated. Even without looking further than the 2 pages per search (or sometimes 3) that you limited yourself to -- which I would advise you to expand, given the poor results of your 5 synagogue nominations -- I see sufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. But obviously, your history of review suggests that you do not fall within the "most cases" category, and you need to do a more comprehensive and careful review in order not to nominate a series of SNOW-closed AfDs.

My statement was true. You nominated at AfD 5 synagogues. You did it on an unwarranted basis. How can you disagree with that?

These are not personal attacks. Nor are they violations of AGF. You perhaps misunderstand both. You are not being attacked. Your actions are being criticized. And rightly so. Further, understand that AGF is an assumption. A rebuttable presumption. Despite AGF, we do in fact routinely block editors, and topic ban editors -- we don't say that because of AGF we can't do so. I personally still assume you acted in good faith though.

If you took your car out five days in a row, and each day got into a fender bender, we wouldn't say you did so in bad faith. But we would be quite correct to suggest that before you take your car out again, you should review your procedures. Because you are doing something quite wrong, as we can tell from the results. Such is the case here. Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as I stated in another thread, with this, I'm done listening to this lack of civility, as per the wiki guidelines on dealing with uncivil folks. Have a nice day, all.Onel5969 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that Onel5969 was acting in good faith. Onel5969 has explained that these five AfDs were filed in response to a complaint from the author of Draft:Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation, a submitted draft that has been declined twice at WP:AfC, pointing to these articles as being unsourced while the Kol Hadash draft has multiple sources and was rejected nonetheless.

I would like to address two concerns I see arising from this narrative. First, it appears to me that a reasonable case might be made for the notability of Kol Hadash Humanistic Congregation, based on sources like these: a 2008 NPR story [9]; a detailed 2008 article in the Chicago Tribune [10]; and a detailed 2014 story from WBEZ [11]; as well as a number of other articles about the congregation's rabbi, Adam Chalom, who is described in some articles as the most prominent American leader of the Humanistic Judaism movement since the death of Sherwin Wine. (The proposed draft has other problems that need addressing, particularly its highly promotional tone.)

But second, even if we assume for the moment that Kol Hadash isn't notable, there were some immediately obvious differences that made these five AfDs inappropriate. These are five older, large, mainstream congregations, each of which had some clear indication of likely notability right in the text of the article: a landmark building, prominent rabbi(s), long history, large congregation, history of influence in the community. In other words, these AfDs did not involve small or obscure neighborhood shuls, but important institutions of the sort that generally have articles on Wikipedia. The articles can all be improved, to be sure, but the problems were self-evidently surmountable, and AfD is not cleanup. So it is not surprising that experienced editors became concerned when they saw the AfDs. And in each case, my very quick check of Google, Google Books, Google News, and/or Google Scholar immediately turned up sources to verify notability. Also, as IZAK has noted elsewhere, many resources are available on Jewish topics that are not necessarily known to those unfamiliar with the area.

At this point, I think the AfDs that are still open can and should be closed; it doesn't sound like anyone still has doubts about the notability of the temple (or the others), and it can be hoped that going forward, we can take some constructive guidance from the experience. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep - Arxiloxos has also added some more references. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Congregation Israel[edit]

North Shore Congregation Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article already has sufficient sourcing to show its notability both as an influential congregation and for its building. More sources are apparent from a basic search, such as [12][13][14] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources provided in the article, and those listed above, address the architectural notability of the congregation's synagogue building. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep. Meets GNG. Per the above.

I note this nom is also attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the 5-top-listed articles nominated by him, today, here. (I'm commenting on similar AfD nominations today by nom that suffer from the same malady in the nomination; I'm not saying that nom acted in bad faith - just that he is seeking today to delete five synagogue articles on the same unwarranted basis). Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Snow Keep. Meets WP:GNG. noted architect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily keep per current sources and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Solel[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As sources verify (although some of them are paywalled), this congregation is notable as an early example of the havurah-based synagogue model, its civil rights activism, and as the early-career home of Arnold Jacob Wolf and Lawrence Kushner. Examples: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on notability established by the reliable sources in the article and those ample additional sources listed above. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep. Meets GNG. Per the above.

I note this nom is also attempting to delete a number of other synagogue articles, which also appear to have the requisite coverage. See the 5-top-listed articles nominated by him, today, here. (I'm commenting on similar AfD nominations today by nom that suffer from the same malady; I'm not saying that nom acted in bad faith - just that he is seeking today to delete five synagogue articles on the same unwarranted basis). Epeefleche (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Even a blue-linked rabbi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily keep per current sources and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Phenomenauts. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ion O'Clast[edit]

Ion O'Clast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm unable to find significant coverage in third-party sources for this person and there's no indication that he passes the notability threshold for biographies either. Pichpich (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-if we had page for EVERY person who writes stuff online.....Wgolf (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A writer and performance artist who says his name is ionoclast Ion O'Clast. And when you google the name, the first hit is twitter. Where he has 27 followers. Zero hits on a news google search. Zero hits on a books google search. delete. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Phenomenauts, where he is already mentioned. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Fox cast members[edit]

List of Star Fox cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability by itself, voice actors for notable characters are already mentioned at List of Star Fox characters. Soetermans. T / C 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-now listed I love Star Fox, but I can't say I've ever kept track of who the cast members are. (Only a few video games would need this list, heck Mario does not even have one!) Wgolf (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to the other list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Video game trivia out of scope for the encyclopedia (not an indiscriminate list). Better suited for Wikia. czar ⨹ 12:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this needs to be documented, it would belong at the character list. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no need for this list. Any relevant info on the cast can be mentioned on the character page.--174.91.184.226 (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Hubbard[edit]

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

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

Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 16

Medal record
Mens Judo
Southern U.S. Championships
	Silver	1962
US Air Force Worldwide Championships
	Gold	1964
U.S. Olympic Trials
	Bronze	1964

Judo competitor who has no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. He also doesn't meet WP:MANOTE--Air Force events are not considered the highest level of competition and he has no podium finishes at any national championship or open international competition.Mdtemp (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepEarned a bronze Medal in the Olympic Trials for the United States in 1964. Placing in the Olympic Trials shows sports notability. Olympic Trials are a notable national event. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Where did you get the ideas that (a) medals are awarded in the U.S. Olympic Trials, and (b) participation in the U.S. Olympic Trials indicates notability per se for Wikipedia? Hint: neither is true. Please review WP:NOLYMPICS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nominator regarding WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Placing in a qualifying event does not confer notability. For Judo the highest level of competition would be either the World or Olympics (just attending would be enough) but that didn't happen. I would say that the New York Times reference caught my attention but then one realizes that it refers to the two competitors that went on to become the Olympic team members and the subject is mentioned only in passing as being defeated. Not really an appropriate first reference on the subject and a little disingenuous. I did alter the article text somewhat to reflect what other references actually said rather then the point the primary author wanted to make.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• commentMANOTE is a guide and he passes that. He passes WP:GNG by qualifying for the Olympic Trials and partcipating in them. He was also the winner of 2 other events outside of placing third in the Olympic Trials. He was also a member of the All Air Force Judo Team. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong - The general notability guidelines of WP:GNG require significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. I strongly urge you to actually read GNG before commenting further. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't believe he meets WP:SPORTCRIT because as stated, he only participated in the trials which are different than the games. When you exclude "trivial" coverage there is not enough to go upon for WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw^talk 08:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no evidence given that he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:ATHLETE. In addition, my search didn't find the significant independent coverage of him required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of significant coverage to pass MANOTE or GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rossella Visconti[edit]

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

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

Porn star with no coverage by reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Fails WP:PORNBIO without awards. A7 speedy declined. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability and unreliable sources should not prevent an A7. I'm frankly astronished this wasn't toast at CSD. Anyhow, no evidence subject passed PORNBIO or GNG so auto fail for a BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because starring in a bunch of titles is an assertion of notability. PORNBIO is a matter for slow deletion, and A7 isn't appropriate. -- Y not? 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If starring in said films is no indication of notability - which it isn't as starring in a bunch of titles isn't in PORNBIO - then no it shouldnt be taken as an assertion of notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the tow above reasons. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. (I would also add that I find the article creator's chosen nom de guerre of "The Hitmakers" to be suggestive of a possible COI account used to promote non-notable bios, and that its contrib history does little to dispel that notion.) Pax 06:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Starring in porn films" is not a criteria of any notability guide to be found in this project. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A not notable porn actress.User:Lucifero4
• Delete Fails PORNBIO. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth McGee Younger[edit]

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

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

Unsure how notable this person is. I can't find any info about the screenplays she apparently has written (which are not even in the refs) so who knows if they were even made. Wgolf (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-for some reason this didn't appear on the page creators talk page. Wgolf (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There's only one Elizabeth Younger listed in IMDb, and she's an unnotable actress. Anybody can write a screenplay; the trick is getting it produced, which this person hasn't. Now if she had started a gang and robbed a bank or two to finance a movie, then we'd have something. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Yadolahi[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Do not Delete: all information is update and accurate --TrueContent 07:25, 23 March 2015 (PST)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prosenjit Choudhury[edit]

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

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

Filmmaker and composer fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:BASIC, no/very little coverage in reliable sources. The subject never created a movie, he/she only is planning one (in the article: "Dakbaksho"; no reliable sources or even self-published ones mention this planned movie; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). The "song" in this case (which received no coverage from reliable sources at all) is for the "planned" movie. Esquivalience ^t 15:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails GNG and other suitable SNGs, WP:TOOSOON at best. Cavarrone 06:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG, no sources present on BLP. ― Padenton |☎  18:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google blazes back at Mozilla, urges Firefox clients to change to Chrome[edit]

Google blazes back at Mozilla, urges Firefox clients to change to Chrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Pishcal — ♣ 15:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as a copyvio of this page. The author copied this article, but changed a few words around (i.e. changing "search results page" to "query items page".

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SK! & all that fun stuff (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wallace[edit]

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

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Onel5969 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator - As stated below, I misread the Politician guidelines. Sorry to have wasted your time. (thanks ScottDavis for the heads up). Onel5969 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, obvious keep. Um, what? He clearly and obviously meets WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a state legislature. What a bizarre nomination. Frickeg (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per Frickeg. The sole reference confirms he was in the state legislature. What a waste of time. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies - I misread the WP:POLITICIAN guideline. Yes, obviously, keep. Onel5969 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can withdroaw the nomination for yourself - see WP:WDAFD. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaila H. Awudu[edit]

Ismaila H. Awudu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

May not satisfy notability criteria for people, although may not be enough to warrant a speedy. Only two sources are 1) from his temple, and 2) his own Facebook profile. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 15:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: It appears to be a page recreated (under a different page name) after a previous deletion discussion. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 19:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Which previous deletion discussion where? The only previous version I can find is Rev Ismaila H.Awudu, which I speedied as an A7. —Cryptic 22:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable, no reliable sources. ~EdGl! 04:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Looks like a NN pastor to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't seem to find any substantial coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deden Rukmana[edit]

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

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

Contested prod created by the creator of the article. Also comes across as a resume somewhat. (and a autobio also) Wgolf (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This entry "Deden Rukmana" should not be deleted because this page about an urban scholar whose works have appeared in many media. You can google his name and will find his works. Deden Rukmana is an urban scholar whose blog is one of the world's best city blogs according to the Guardian Cities. Thank you.

• Deden Rukmana was also mentioned in an entry in Indonesia's Wikipedia: https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikatan_Ilmuwan_Indonesia_Internasional

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We only keep biographies on outstanding individuals and this individual is not outstanding. WP:TOOSOON might apply, we'll see. Presently, he's just an associate professor. The unnecessary detailed list of grants, that the article was created by user:Dedenrukmana1 suggest a WP:COI. WP:NOTLINKEDIN applies. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Said E. Dawlabani[edit]

Said E. Dawlabani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Author of the promotional book in the adjacent AfD. No other distinction or accomplishment, and writing of one non-notable pseudoscience book is not notability, even within the domains of pseudoscience. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Notability missing. Educationtemple (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabi Ji Ghar Pe Hai[edit]

Bhabi Ji Ghar Pe Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a one-week-old television series. I am unable to find any sources that establish notability. It's also not clear whether this is a broadcast television series, or an online-only series, in which case it may be eligible for CSD A7 deletion. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MrX 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - MrX 19:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-unotable tv show. Wgolf (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Smith (Memphis Mafia)[edit]

Billy Smith (Memphis Mafia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article falls under category of WP:INHERITED because of his familial relationship to Elvis Presley. As with his brother's article (Gene Smith (Memphis Mafia)), this individual has no real notability on his own. Was a member of Elvis' "Memphis Mafia", but not one of the better known and more notable members of the group. Other than books published with a passing reference to Smith in them, majority of article references are from questionable sources. If article not deleted, suggest it to be merged with or redirected to Memphis Mafia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; only one is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Memphis Mafia. Michig (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Smith (Memphis Mafia)[edit]

Gene Smith (Memphis Mafia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article falls under category of WP:INHERITED because of his familial relationship to Elvis Presley. As with his brother's article (Billy Smith (Memphis Mafia)), this individual has no real notability on his own. Was a member of Elvis' "Memphis Mafia", but not one of the better known and more notable members of the group. Other than books published with a passing reference to Smith in them, majority of article references are from questionable sources. If article not deleted, suggest it to be merged with or redirected to Memphis Mafia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: to Memphis Mafia per WP:NOTINHERITED rationale. Vrac (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Notable enough for a mention in that article, but no more. Relentlessly (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Jüngling[edit]

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

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

Article falls under WP:INHERITED. Individual has no real notability on his own other than being the father of someone who started America's oldest brewery. Delete and redirect to D.G. Yuengling & Son which is now redirected to Yuengling. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; only one is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 13:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As an unsourced BLP, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Harris[edit]

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

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

Not notable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. No competitive bio at isuresults.com Hergilei (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply by Galerita (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC):[reply]

I was not aware there were detailed criteria for notability for figure skaters. I considered this question prior to writing the article. My reference case was Marin Honda whom I also note you [[22]] have marked for deletion on grounds of notability. I note the only "non-criteria" for notability is that Harris has been successful at at advanced novice level, below the threshold junior level. (Having a competitive bio at isuresults.com is not a criteria for notability.) I am happy to accept the article be deleted on grounds of notability provided the policy is applied consistently.

By the way there needs to be an article on the levels in figure skating, particularly the differences between (advanced) novice, junior and senior, noting the qualification ages (eg 10-15 for ISU novice on 1 July prior to competition) and the variation between the ISU and individual countries. Advanced novice, junior and senior are important as they are recorded in many competition pages, unlike basic novice. This one is inadequate. I don't have sufficient expertise to write this article, but see ^[1] for the ISU advanced novice criteria.

Postscipt. Marin Honda has achieved a Junior ISU record since the entries above.Galerita (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Galerita (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this unsourced biography of a living person unless reliable sources can be added to substantiate the content. I appreciate this was a good faith attempt to create an article, but writing biographies of living people without the benefit of third-party sourcing just opens the article to abuse and defamation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, Comment I accept the criteria for deletion based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability, but the article was sourced from the competition website, so I don't understand your objection on WP:BLP grounds. Galerita (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2016 (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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CI Capital[edit]

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

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

Article would require a fundamental rewrite to read as a non-promotional article. Also, the notability of the article is questionable, and no proof has been produced by the author to support notability. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 22:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to Commercial International Bank, its parent. The article text as it stands is promotional - paraphrases of the firm's own website, not even the effort to edit out the 1st person plural. The parent's notability is not inherited by its sub-units. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whova[edit]

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

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

Fails to meet WP:Notability. A look at the history of this article shows that it was nominated once before for the same reason via WP:PROD. That time, the article creator (who appears very closely affiliated with the subject) removed the PROD tag, which is not a problem. I have notified creator as a courtesy. Article has too many issues to be worth saving. TritonsRising (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As written the article is borderline spam. I couldn't find any independent coverage outside of directory listings and the occasional conference using the app, though this is something that ought to attract easily google-able commentary. Receiving an SBIR grant is not a sign of notability. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Pool[edit]

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

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

Restored contested prod of non notable book, articles consist mostly of a plot summary and character list - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No third-party sources or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability, and the editor that requested restoration after it was previously PRODed has shown no interest in working on the article to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Publisher and retailer web sites do not demonstrate notability.SephyTheThird (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]